TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption in terms of the notification. It is seen that the appellant filed a declaration on 31.03.2010 with their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities claiming the benefit of the said notification on the ground that they have started their commercial production. The appellant factory was subsequently visited by the officer on 17.04.2010 and enquiries were conducted. Statement of their Accountant Sh. Sunil Bhardwar was recorded who stated that they have commenced trial production till that date w.e.f . 30.03.2010 and have not started maintaining the statutory record. Accordingly, Revenue believed that the commercial production had not commenced by 31.03.2010 and the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the notification. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated resulting in passing of the present impugned order. 4. On going through the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the statement of their Accountant who was not offered for cross-examination. He has also referred to the fact that the soldering paste had not been purchased by the appellant till 31.03.2010 indicating that the goods were not manufactured by that day. He has also referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reby requested to submit the following: 01. Memorandum and articles of association of the company 02. Details of various registrations taken by the company. The above documents should reach our office within seven days of receipt of this letter". 7. It is seen from the above that there is a mention in the said letter as regards start of commercial production of electronic goods on the day of the visit of the officer on 30.03.2010. The said letter is by a State Government authority and stands issued during the relevant time i.e. on 31.03.2010, independent of the dispute involved in the present appeal. As such the letter has to be given strong credence. Accordingly, without adverting to the weight of evidence on record produced by both the sides, we note that the said letter is a strong piece of evidence indicating that the appellant had started production on 30.03.2010, in which case they would earn the benefit of the notification in question. 8. Inasmuch as there is no dispute about the availability of the notification to the appellant, on account of their unit being located in the area of Hardwar, the condition of the notification have t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption notification, they have submitted the list of raw materials to be used in the manufacture of finished goods along with declaration. The appellant submitted the six raw materials namely 1) Circuit Board 2) Diode 3) Resistance 4) Integrated circuit 5) Soldering paste and 6) Soldering wire. During the verification of the records by the Central excise officers, it was noticed that soldering paste and soldering wire were not available in the factory as there is no receipt of any kind of soldering paste or soldering wire in the unit upto to 31st March, 2010. Soldering wire and Soldering paste were critical raw materials as declared by the appellants themselves in their declaration without which the finished goods cannot be manufactured by the appellants . 5. The appellants have also submitted the list of plant and machinery used in the manufacture of finished goods in their said declaration namely i ) Conveyer belt 2) Signal system 3) Pneumatic Screw Driver 4) Pipeline 5) Compressors and 6) Auto Insertion Machine. It was observed that Pneumatic Screw Driver declared as plant and machinery required for the manufacture of finished goods was not available with the appellant by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (Technical). (Pronounced) Archana Wadhwa , Member (J) Sahab Singh, Member (T) Date of hearing/Decision: 26/07/2013 1. The appellants are manufacturers of EMPEG Cards for CTVs , DVD players, VCD players, etc. Their unit is located in Uttrakhand , District-Hardwar. Notification No.50 /03-CE dated 10.06.2003 exempted the goods covered by this notification, manufactured by the industrial units located in the areas mentioned in Annexure-II and III to this notification, provided that the unit is either new industrial unit set-up, in the specified area which had commenced commercial production on or after 7.1.2003 but not later than 31.3.2010 or is an industrial unit existing before 7.1.2003 in the notified areas which had undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in the installed capacity by not less than 25% on or after 7th day of Jan. 2003. and has commenced commercial production from such expanded capacity not later than 31.3.2010. In this case, the appellant are a new industrial unit claiming benefit of this notification on the basis of their claim that they had commenced commercial production on or before 31.3.2010. There is no dispute that the unit is located in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice, the jurisdictional Commissioner, Central Excise vide order-in-original dated 24.7.2012 confirmed the duty demand of Rs.1 ,76,87,618 /- for the period from April, 2010 to Feb. 2011 and of Rs.21,15,878 /- for the period from March, 2011 to December, 2011 along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Section 11AC . Against this order of the Commissioner, these two appeals have been filed along with stay applications. The total demand confirmed against the appellant is Rs.1 ,98,03,496 /- and same amount of penalty has been imposed. 2. Stay applications were heard on 11.2.2013. While Hon'ble Member (Judicial) vide her order dated 19.2.2013, has ordered dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit holding that the appellant in view of letter dated 31.3.2010 issued by the Regional Manager, State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation, Uttrakhand to the appellant had commenced commercial production on 31.3.2010 and therefore, the appellant were eligible for duty exemption under notification no.50 /03-CE, Hon'ble Member (T) by a separate order recorded by him, has taken a contrary view holding that the appellant have not been able t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had been requested, but the same was refused by the Commissioner without giving any reasons, that it is settled law that when the cross examination of a person, whose statement is relied upon by the department is requested, the request has to be considered and the request for cross examination can be refused only for good and valid reasons and in this regard he relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 514 (Allahabad) , that since cross examination of Shri Sunil Bhardwaj had not been allowed, no reliance can be placed on his statement, that on 17.4.2010, the date of the officers' visit, there was clearance of 3000 pieces of the DVD EMPEG cards and during the month of April, 2010, a total of 76,000 pieces of EMPEG cards had been cleared, that all this shows that the appellant had commenced commercial production on or before 31.3.2010 and hence are eligible for the exemption and since the appellant have prima facie case in their favour , Hon'ble Member (Judicial) had correctly ordered waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty; demand, interest and penalty. 6. Ms. Sweta Bector , L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment, wherein it has been mentioned that commercial production commenced on 31.3.2010. She, therefore, pleaded that the appellant's claim of having commenced commercial production on 31.3.2010 is not acceptable and they are not eligible for exemption and hence, they, have not been able to establish prima facie case. She accordingly pleaded that Hon'ble Member (Technical) has correctly ordered for pre-deposit of 50% of the duty demand. 7. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The exemption under notification no.50 /2003 is available to a unit, which is located in a specified area, is manufacturing the goods covered by this exemption notification and is either an existing unit in the specified area which had undertaken substantial expansion by the way of at least 25% increase in installed capacity on or after 7.1.2003 and had commenced commercial production from such expanded capacity not later than 31.3.2010 or is a new unit which had commenced commercial production on or after 7.1.2003 but not later than 31.3.2010. The appellant's unit is a new unit. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether the appellant had commenced commercial p....