TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(AR) For the Respondent : Shri Prakash Shah, Adv ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. SVS/470/NGP-I/2006 dated 30.11.2006. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondent has correctly availed the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 during the financial year 2002-03. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sildar of the Village and the Regional Officer, MIDC, Nagpur have given certificates that the factory of the appellant falls under Rural area as defined in the Notification No. 8/2002-CE. 4. We find that the show-cause notice as well as the findings of the first appellate authority clearly record that the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE is denied on the ground that the appellant is not eligi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Government of Maharashtra hence falls under the category of exclusively carved out by a Notification. We have considered the submissions made by learned D.R. on this point and various notifications & relevant clauses. We find that the first appellate authority has correctly recorded the findings as to whether the factory falls under rural area which we reproduce. "28. In support of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sildar of the Village that the factory of the appellant is located in the rural area and another certificate which has been issued by the Regional Officer, MIDC, Nagpur to the same effect. It is not the case of the Revenue, the Regional Officer, MIDC could not have issued the said certificate indicating that the respondent's factory is located in rural area. As against such a specific findings....