2016 (10) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CE dated 1.10.2003. Upon acquiring the said unit, the appellant intended to continue to avail the said area based exemption for residual period in terms of the said notification. The Revenue by entertaining the view that they have not fulfilled the conditions of the notification initiated proceedings against them which resulted in the Order-in-Original dated 4.7.2014. The original authority denied the area based exemption to the appellant which was confirmed by the impugned order. 3.  Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower authorities have erred in disallowing the concession to the appellant on wrong appreciation of the facts. His arguments can be summarized: (a)  on 9.1.2014,the appellant intimated about shi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in terms of the Board's circular No.939/29/2010-CX dated 20.12.2010 and Circular No.960/03/2012 dated 17.2.2012 . There is no case for denial of exemption to the appellant. 4.  Learned AR supported the decision of the lower authorities. He submitted that M/s. Stanely Control who operated under area based exemption in 2009 stopped manufacturing and were virtually non functional at the time of purchase by the appellant. Further, the appellant have started their new manufacturing activity for manufacturing OSAA, as such they are not eligible for area based exemption. 5.  We have heard both sides and examined the appeal records. 6. Admittedly, the facts of the case are that the appellant purchased and taken over M/s. Stanely ....