TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant and it is found from records that nobody has been appearing even in the past. 3. We have heard the learned departmental representative and proceed to decide the matter on merits based on the submissions made in the appeal and the records of the case. 4. The appellant/assessee is a manufacturer of auto parts falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff and claimed the benefit of area based exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 which was available to units which have started commercial production by 31 March 2010. The appellant issued an invoice for their final products in the month of March 2010. In view of the cut off date for the eligibility of the exemptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1944. 3. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 4,120/- on the party under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules,2002 for violating the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rules made thereunder". 6. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the impugned order modifying the order of the Assistant Commissioner to the extent of giving the appellant the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003. On the eligibility of the exemption Notification No. 50/2003, he found in favour of the Revenue. 7. There is no appeal by the Revenue against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, to the extent of allowing the benefit of the SSI exemption Notification No. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case as per the appeal memorandum filed by the appeal because they were given the benefit of another exemption notification by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant is only praying that they may be given the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE. 12. The first ground of appeal is that the original authority had violated principles of natural justice by not giving them an opportunity of personal hearing and there was no finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this aspect. We find that the original authority recorded in paragraph 2 of his order as follows: "2. Case for the Party:- M/s. Sonai Auto Industries did not submit any defence reply to the show cause notice. As the party neither submitted a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by it to various authorities. None of these is a document establishing that the commercial manufacture had commenced before 31 March 2010. The only document which was based on actual physical verification was the Panchnama drawn by the Central Excise officers on 08.04.2010. Evidently, if the construction was at a basic stage on that day, it could not have already been completed prior to this date. If the appellant disagreed with the Panchnama, it could have assailed it, cross examined the officers or witnesses before the original authority. The Panchnama was one of the Relied upon Documents (RUD-3) in the show cause notice. The appellant did no such thing. None of the documents which are said to have been produced before the Commissioner (A....