TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 or not. It is undisputed that one of the conditions for availing the benefit of this notification was that the factory should have commenced "commercial production on or before 31.03.2010". The appellant claimed the benefit of this notification. A show cause notice [SCN] dated 16.07.2015 was issued to the appellant after detailed investigation which showed to the Revenue that the appellant had, in fact, not commenced commercial production before 31.03.2010. The demand was confirmed by the Commissioner by order dated 22.07.2016 which, on assessee's appeal, was remanded to Original Authority by this Tribunal's order dated 07.11.2017 in view of some contradictory facts mentioned in that orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. The declaration under the exemption notification was filed by the Department on 29.03.2010 and, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the production has not "commenced by that date" ; (ii) The exemption was denied by the impugned order on incorrect emphasis. Even before the main furnace was installed. The appellant had two small karahai type furnaces fitted in earth build in-house (moose furnaces) which were functional and the appellant was manufacturing goods ; (iii) The SCN was issued after more than 4 years in the beginning of the investigation and, therefore, is not sustainable ; (iv) The demand of duty, interest and imposition of penalty are, therefore, incorrect and the appeal may be allowed and the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant to have manufactured 430.20 kg. of final product namely aluminium sections with merely 136.31 kg. of scrap. (iv) The goods which were manufactured by the appellant were aluminium sections, which are produced by extrusion. They are manufactured by putting the aluminium ingots through the process of extrusion, i.e., by heating ingots and pushing them through a die with specific cross sectional profile. It is impossible that aluminium sections emerge out of the Karahai furnace itself. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had the infrastructure to extrude aluminium sections by 31.03.2020 ; (v) As per the standard input/out norms notified by the DGFT to manufacture 1 kg. of aluminium extruded prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date. It is also the case of the appellant that the industrial furnace was brought in and installed and used prior to 31.03.2010 and the first invoice for final product was issued on 31.03.2010. An intimation was served upon the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and the Range Superintendent of letter dated 29.03.2010. 7. We have carefully gone through the intimation dated 29.03.2010 issued by the appellant. It states, inter-alia "with reference to the above notification, it is kindly informed to you that we are going to start commercial production from the last week of March". This is followed by the details of the raw materials and final products which the appellant would use and manufacture. The products to be manufactured included....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ument of the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue that under this invoice dated 31.03.2010 aluminium sections were sold which are extrusion products and there was no equipment for extrusion in the factory. Records show, as has been indicated in paragraph 15.4 of the impugned order, that Shri Ravi Agarwal of the appellant was asked as to how it could have produced 430.2 kg. of aluminium sections within two days by consuming a mere on 136.31 kg. of scrap, he claimed that records will be supplied later, but never did so. In the absence of any contrary evidence we accept Revenue's contention that it was impossible for appellant to have produced 430 kg. of sections by consuming 136 kg. of aluminium scrap. Therefore, on the facts of ....