TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the appellant would fall within rural area in order to claim SSI benefit under Notification No.08/2003 dated 01.03.2003. The Ld. AR pointed out that the Show Cause Notice had been issued by the Department basing upon GO.Ms. No.274 dated 20.04.2007 by which the villages Maheswaram and Thummaluru were included in the jurisdiction of HUDA. That therefore these villages ceased to be rural area. It is submitted on behalf Department that at the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel appearing for appellant furnished Schedule of the relevant GO and contended that these two villages are not included in the Schedule. The appellant had not produced the Schedule in its entirety and the Tribunal was misled due to missing pages in the schedule. The Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tinue to be in the rural area. That the Tribunal in the impugned Final Order had also relied upon the decisions the case of Macfield Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Coch [2008 (223) ELT 231 (Tri.-Bang)] and Sanchez Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore [2009 (233) ELT 226 ( Tri.-Chennai)] in which the certificate issued by the Tahsildar was made the basis to include that the locations fall within the rural area. The Counsel drew support from the judgment in the case of Katyani Foods & Beverages (P) Ltd., Vs CCE, Meerut [2004 (170) ELT 82 (Tri.-Del.)] and argued that in the said judgment even though the village was covered under the Haridwar Development Authority the Tribunal relied upon the revenue documents issued by Grama Panchayat t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he show-cause notices issued by the Department lack factual basis. Therefore, the demand raised on the above allegation also fails. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions laid in Macfield Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coch[2008(223) ELT 231 (Tri.-Bang)] and Sanchez Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore [2009(233) ELT 226 (Tri. Chennai)] in which the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has taken the view that the certificate issued by Tahshildar would be sufficient to conclude that the location is within the rule area. After issuance of the certificate by the Tahsildar in 2005, the Revenue has not been able to adduce evidence that the said areas are urban areas. In view thereof, the impugned order are set a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rea. To support this contention, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Katyani Foods & Beverages (P) Ltd, (supra). In the said judgments, though for Tribunal has observed that mere Notification in Haridwar Development Authority cannot be considered that the location is an urban are, it is seen that in the said judgment the appellant has produced revenue records/documents to show that the villages are within the rural area even after notification by Haridwar Development Authority. In the present case after notification by HUDA the appellant has not produce any revenue records/documents to establish that these villages are still in rural area. Further without producing the relevant pages the appellant ought not to have put forward th....