2020 (2) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in Appeal No.E/12885/2013DB. 2. The following issues have been raised for the consideration of this Court. "7A). Whether the appellant has rightly claimed benefit of Exemption Notification No. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 (as Amended from time to time) in respect of goods that said to have manufactured on such plant and machineries that were installed after cut off date 31.12.2005? b. Whether the expansion of the unit after cut-off date 31.12.2005 does restrict the appellant to avail the benefit of Exemption Notification No.39/2001-CE? C. Whether the larger period of limitation is invokable in the facts of the present case?" 3. Thus, having regard to the issues referred to above, this appeal before this Court would not be maintainabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t that the factory premises are neither part of each other nor the process of final product is interlinked and nor the premise are segregated by public road, railway line, canal etc. and if was, then are the statutory provisions of law to be ignored on that ground? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, CESTAT is correct in holding that extended period cannot be invoked? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, CESTAT is correct in dropping the entire demand against the Jamnagar Mobile Plant/Unit of M/s Ratnamani Metal & Tubes Limited., without assigning any cogent reason? (vi) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, CESTAT is justified in holding that no case for pe....