2012 (9) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11AC of the Central Excise Rules. 3. The demand was confirmed by denying the benefit of Notification No. 69/2003-C.E., dated 25-8-2003 as amended, in respect of excisable goods manufactured in Shed No. 17. 4. Case of the Revenue is that the Applicant availed wrongly the benefit of Notification No. 69/2003-C.E. which provides for exemption from payment of duty in respect of the Unit located in Assam, and commenced commercial production on or after 24-12-1997 but not later than 28-2-2001. The case of the Revenue is that in the Shed No. 17, the excisable goods were manufactured with effect from 19-8-2002. Hence, the benefit of Notification is not available. 5. Contention of the Applicant is that the demand is for the pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as the Shed No. 17 was taken on lease on 6-1-2001 and the commercial production had started on 19-8-2002, i.e. after 28-2-2001, therefore, the benefit of the Notification is rightly denied. He also relied upon the findings of the Adjudicating Authority regarding suppression of facts and misstatement with intent to evade payment of duty and submitted that the demand was rightly made. 7. We find that in the Excise Appeal No. 132/08 which is in respect of their Shed Nos. 15 and 36D in Agartala Unit, where the demand was confirmed on the same ground that the commercial production in the Sheds in question had started after the date mentioned in the exemption Notification. In that case, the Tribunal directed the Applicant to deposit 50% o....