TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdictional Central Excise authorities opting for availing the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. The said notification provided for exemption from excise duty for the industrial unit set up in specified areas and commenced commercial production not later than 31.03.2010. Pursuant to the application filed by the appellant, the Department inquired into the matter and found that no capital goods were installed in the appellant's unit except one compressor. Based on the verification, the Jurisdictional Superintendent submitted his report to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Rampur on 20.04.2010, stating that manufacturing activities by the appellant is not possible, and accordingly, recommended that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e department was duly intimated of such fact vide letter dated 26.03.2010. To substantiate the fact that the commercial production has started on 26.03.2010, the Ld. Advocate has referred to the invoices dated 27.03.2010 and 30.03.2010 issued by it for sale of the helmets and also the consignment note issued by the transporter for delivery of goods at the buyers' premises. He also referred to the VAT Return filed before the Jurisdictional Authorities showing the payment of appropriate VAT/ CST on sale of Helmets to the buyers before 30.03.2010. With regard to the doubt expressed by the department that certain capital goods were transported only in September, 2010, the Ld. Advocate has clarified that the movement of capital goods was in Marc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 10.06.2003 should be eligible to the appellant. Further, we find that the department has not followed the establish procedures of preparation of punchnama, recording of such statement etc. before arriving at the conclusion that the appellant did not commence its commercial production before 31.03.2010. In fact the visit of the offices was much after 31.03.2010. 8. We find that during March, 2010 the appellant did not possess all the machinery to manufacture helmet from raw material (plastic) to finished goods (helmet). However, admittedly, they undertook manufacture of helmet from semi-finished shell procured by them. We have perused various photographs submitted by the appellant to explain the manual processes involved in making helm....