2020 (8) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant. Shri V.B. Jain, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of polymer based soil stabilizer under sub-heading no.3905 1290 of the Central Excise Tariff. They have set up their unit in the state of Uttrakhand and claimed the benefit of the Area based exemption notification no.50/03-CE dated 10.06.2003, claiming that their unit is loc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inspection of the unit, they found that while plant and machinery as declared on 15.03.2010 were installed in the factory premises, the same were not used by them till the date of their visit i.e. 17.04.2010. At the time of their visit, there was no production activity going on, there were no workers and whatever production they had shown for the month of March, 2010, the same had been made throug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with interest and besides this, penalty of equal amount was imposed. The Commissioner in this order confirmed the demand on the basis that the appellant did not start production by using the declared machinery and if some alternative method was used to start the commercial production in March, 2010, the appellant would not be eligible for exemption. Against this order of the Commissioner, this ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....03. 2010. In the factory, they installed the tank of various capacities, but for the initial production, small tank was used. The Adjudicating Authority opined that all machines were not used, so area based exemption cannot be granted and, therefore, demanded duty. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee-Respondents by observing that the production was started prior to....