TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction on 27th February, 2008. At that time setting up of their commercial production it is admitted that the appellant has not filed any declaration under Notification No. 50/2003-CE i.e. area based exemption and the appellant filed a declaration on 15th July, 2009 for claiming exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE with effect from 27th February, 2008. The Revenues view that before the period 27th February 2008 to 14th July, 2009 as appellant has not filed declaration for claiming benefit under Notification No. 50/2003-CE before commencement of their commercial production they are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE. In these certain facts a show cause notice dated 19th April, 2011 was issued to the appellant to deny ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Meerut I reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T. 570 (Tri. Del.) and Surya Polypack Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE vide final order No. 53827053828/2014 dated 30/09/2014, therefore exemption to the appellant under Notification No. 50/2003-CE cannot be denied. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submits that as the appellant has not filed mandatory declaration to claim the exemption under said notification, therefore, appellant is not entitled to claim exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 3. Heard the parties. In this case it is admitted fact that on 15th J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed upon both the appellants. In a nut shell, both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. 19. As regards the question of limitation, it is un-disputed that while the assessee started availing of this exemption from 20/05/2006 when the first clearances were made, they filed the declaration only on 14/03/2008. There is no dispute that the goods being manufactured are not in the negative list of Annexure-I and the unit is located in the Industrial Area mentioned in Annexure-II. Since the declaration had been made by the appellant themselves on 14/03/208 and the same is correct, they cannot be accused of suppression of the relevant information with to evade the payment of duty. When on 14/03/2008, the declaratio....