2017 (6) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the appellant. Ms. Suchitra Sharma, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 30/08/2012 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of articles of iron and steel, engineering goods etc. liable to Central Excise duty. The dispute in the present appeal rela....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....800 MW each, the exemption was sought to be denied to the appellant. 2. The case was adjudicated by the Commissioner who accepted the appellants claim regarding the nature of project being Mega Power Project, considering the overall power capacity in the project. However, the Original Authority denied the exemption to the appellant on entirely different reason. He held that the exemption under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not Mega Power Project. Whereas, the original order accepted the project as Mega Power Project. The exemption was denied on entirely new ground, not proposed in the show cause notice. Further, even the ground mentioned in the impugned order is on erroneous application of condition of the notification, which was not existing during the relevant time. It is submitted that the said Notification 21/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Original Authority. However, the Original Authority went ahead and denied the exemption on entirely different ground of non-fulfillment of condition 86 (iii) of Notification 21/2002-CUS. We note that the provision of notification relied upon by the Original Authority is not available during the period now under consideration. In other words, the Original Authority applied a non-existing leg....