TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The appellant is a Central Excise assessee holding Central Excise registration and engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely, Mixed Gauge Sleeper and Waste of HTC Wire. 3. The Government of India approved a package of fiscal incentives and other concessions for the north east region, namely, "North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007" effective from 1-4-2007. Pursuant to the aforesaid policy, the Government of India issued Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated April 25, 2007 granting exemption from duty of excise chargeable on specific goods manufactured in new industrial units which commence commercial production on or after April 1, 2007 but not later than March 31, 2017. 4. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007 contained in the Office Memorandum dated 1-4-2007 issued by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry? 2. As to what is the definition, scope and ambit of the term 'Commercial Production' as well as the date of commencement thereof in terms of the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 framed under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 3. Whether entry made in the RG-1 and ER-1 Returns filed by the Appellant in compliance of legal requirements in the absence of any specific evidence can be assumed to be entries regarding Commercial Production, as has been done by the learned Appellate Tribunal? 4. Whether the official records filed before the learned Appellate Tribunal having rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. He submits that trial production and commercial production are two different concepts. Commercial production is production on regular basis. Acceptance of goods produced on trial basis by the customer and payment thereof would not transform the character of trial production into commercial production. He, therefore, contends that the Tribunal had fallen in error in rejecting the appeal of the appellant as the appellant had commenced commercial production after April 1, 2007 making the appellant eligible for the benefits under the notification dated April 25, 2007. In support of his submissions, he refers to the following decisions : (i) CIT v. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. - 1974 (93) ITR 548 (Bom.), (ii)&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have started their commercial production on the 1st day of February 2007. Whereas Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 stipulates vide clause 5(a) that new industrial unit which commence commercial production on or after 1st day of April 2007 is illegible for benefit of exemption under this notification. On 18-12-2007 Sri A.K. Dasgupta, on the strength of authority letter from M/s. Railtrack Concrete Production Pvt. Ltd., Bihara attended the personal hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Silchar and submitted that the production started from February, 2007 was a trial production because the firm has develop necessary infrastructure facilities for manufacturing testing and inspection of mixed Gause Sleeper and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28.5 lakhs. Therefore, such production was held to be commercial production. The following is the relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) : "In the instant case the dispute relates to date of commencement of commercial production there is no scope for interpretation of the language of the Notification. Both the appellant and department agreed that the production was commenced during February 2007. The only dispute remains whether the said production could be termed as "Commercial Production", I find that the product produced during February 2007 has cleared by the appellant against a commercial consideration of Rs. 28.5 lacs. It is not the case where clearance has been made without any commercial consideration for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....railway sleepers valued at Rs. 28.5 Lakhs, in the month of January 2007 and cleared to Railways. This production quantity was reflected in RG-1 record and ER-1 returns. There is no evidence on record to show that the sleepers were cleared for non-commercial consideration. As the appellant commenced commercial production prior to that mentioned in the notification hence are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 20/2007-C.E. From this it is admitted by the appellant that duty of excise is already recovered from the railways. In these circumstances we find no infirmity in the impugned order thereby the benefit of Notification is denied, the appeal is dismissed. Misc. application is also disposed of in same terms." 17. From the....