2017 (11) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....235/2015 dated 24.9.15. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of plastic caps and bottles and is located in Haridwar. The appellant has claimed the benefit of area based exemption under notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.6.2003. The benefit of the notification stand denied by the department, vide two impugned orders for two different periods and duty demands have been raised against the appellant along with interest and imposition of penalties. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefit of area based exemption, both the appeals have been filed. Being the common issue, these appeals are being decided through this common order. 2. With the above background we have heard Shri V K Pawar, and Shri R K Mishra, learned counsels for the parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e circular dated 17.2.2012, the assessee, filed a formal declaration on 28.3.2012 intimating the change in ownership as well as the details of new products. Accordingly, he submitted that the benefit of notification cannot be denied to the appellant. 4. The learned DR justified the impugned orders. It is his submission that the benefit of notification already extended to the original unit cannot be continued to the present appellant since the appellant has set up a completely new unit with fresh machines, making use of only the land and building of the original unit. It is different from a simple case of change in ownership of the company as contemplated in the CBEC circular dated 177.2.2012. The situation is also different from that in ....