https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764357 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal by remand regarding denial of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE for failure to commence commercial production by 1.03.2010. The department relied on officer visit findings from 06.04.2010 and raw material purchase dates to conclude no production occurred by the deadline. However, CESTAT noted the Range Superintendent certified on 29.07.2010 that the unit was operational and availing exemption as of 31.03.2010. The tribunal found the Commissioner erred by relying on selective evidence while ignoring the Superintendent's report, both being departmental evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of all relevant issues within 16 weeks. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jan 2025 10:08:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764357 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal by remand regarding denial of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE for failure to commence commercial production by 1.03.2010. The department relied on officer visit findings from 06.04.2010 and raw material purchase dates to conclude no production occurred by the deadline. However, CESTAT noted the Range Superintendent certified on 29.07.2010 that the unit was operational and availing exemption as of 31.03.2010. The tribunal found the Commissioner erred by relying on selective evidence while ignoring the Superintendent's report, both being departmental evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of all relevant issues within 16 weeks. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764357