JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 2-3-2009, 2009 (243) E.L.T. 65 (Tri. - Kolkata)] passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in Excise Appeal No. E/A-285/2008. The appellant is a Central Excise assessee holding Central Excise registration and engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely, Mixed Gauge Sleeper and Waste of HTC Wire. 2. The Government of India approved a package of fiscal incentives and other concessions for the north east region, namely, "North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007" effective from 1-4-2007. Pursuant to the aforesaid policy, the Government of India issued Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated April 25, 2007 granting exemption from duty of excise chargeable on specific goods manufactured in new industrial units which commence commercial production on or after April 1, 2007 but not later than March 31, 2017. 3. The appellant submitted an application on 10-8-2007 before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Silchar for availing exemption from payment of Central Excise duty in terms of the above notification dated 25-4-2007 and claiming refund of the Excise duty paid in respect of the final products namely, Mixed Gauge Sleeper and Waste of HTC Wire. 4. By order dated 17-1-2008, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim of the appellant holding that it is not eligible for benefit of exemption in terms of the notification dated 25-4-2007. 5. The appellant thereafter filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Guwahati against the rejection of its application by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) by his appellate order dated 27-3-2008 rejected the appeal holding that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 6. The appellant filed further appeal before the Tribunal, which as indicated above, was dismissed by the order dated 2-3-2009. 7. Aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Court. 8. This Court by the order dated 18-11-2009 admitted the appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law : 1. 6. The appellant filed further appeal before the Tribunal, which as indicated above, was dismissed by the order dated 2-3-2009. 7. Aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Court. 8. This Court by the order dated 18-11-2009 admitted the appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the trial production undertaken in course of development of the plant in terms of the contract of the Railways can be termed as 'Commercial Production' as stipulated under Clause-2 of the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 contained in the Office Memorandum dated 1-4-2007 issued by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry? 2. As to what is the definition, scope and ambit of the term 'Commercial Production' as well as the date of commencement thereof in terms of the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 framed under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 3. Whether entry made in the RG-1 and ER-1 Returns filed by the Appellant in compliance of legal requirements in the absence of any specific evidence can be assumed to be entries regarding Commercial Production, as has been done by the learned Appellate Tribunal? 4. Whether the official records filed before the learned Appellate Tribunal having revealed commencement of Commercial Production only on and from 15-6-2007, the learned Tribunal was vested with any Jurisdiction to hold otherwise, that too without even discussing the evidences on record? 5. Whether an Appellate Tribunal exercising Jurisdiction under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can decide an Appeal by cryptic non-speaking order without deciding and appreciating the materials and evidences on record, as has been done in the instant case? 6. Whether non-consideration of the relevant factors by the learned Appellate Tribunal including the factum of trial production vis-a-vis Commercial Production and the embargo put by RDSO and stipulation of commencement of Commercial Production in the contract only after permission and certification of quality by RDSO has rendered the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal perverse occasioning violation of the mandates of section 35B & 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 9. Heard Dr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned standing counsel, Central Excise. 10. 9. Heard Dr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned standing counsel, Central Excise. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved in the appeal is whether the appellant had commenced commercial production in January, 2007 or in June 2007. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the materials on record clearly shows that all production carried out by the appellant prior to June, 2007 were trial production and not commercial production. He submits that trial production and commercial production are two different concepts. Commercial production is production on regular basis. Acceptance of goods produced on trial basis by the customer and payment thereof would not transform the character of trial production into commercial production. He, therefore, contends that the Tribunal had fallen in error in rejecting the appeal of the appellant as the appellant had commenced commercial production after April 1, 2007 making the appellant eligible for the benefits under the notification dated April 25, 2007. In support of his submissions, he refers to the following decisions : (i) CIT v. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. - 1974 (93) ITR 548 (Bom.), (ii) Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Southern Structural Ltd. - 1977 (110) TTR 164 (Mad.), (iii) CIT v. Himalyan Hagnesite Ltd. - 2005 (276) ITR 56 (All.), (iv) Collector of Central Excise v. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. - 1990 (46) E.L.T. 569 (T), Para 19, and (v) Suvi Cement Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 455 (T). 11. Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that considering the limited scope of an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, there is no merit in the appeal which would require intervention of the High Court. He submits that the Tribunal being the final fact finding authority had arrived at a clear finding of fact that the appellant had commenced commercial production in January, 2007 and, therefore, would not be eligible to the benefits under the notification dated 25-4-2007. According to him, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and, therefore, the same should be dismissed. 12. The rival submissions have been duly considered. 13. The adjudicating authority on scrutiny of the returns filed and the other documents held that the appellant had started Commercial Production on 1-2-2007. According to him, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and, therefore, the same should be dismissed. 12. The rival submissions have been duly considered. 13. The adjudicating authority on scrutiny of the returns filed and the other documents held that the appellant had started Commercial Production on 1-2-2007. The following is the finding of the adjudicating authority : On scrutiny of the copies of the RG-1 and ER-1s submitted by M/s. Railtrack Concrete Production Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that they have started their commercial production on the 1st day of February 2007. Whereas Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 stipulates vide clause 5(a) that new industrial unit which commence commercial production on or after 1st day of April 2007 is illegible for benefit of exemption under this notification. On 18-12-2007 Sri A.K. Dasgupta, on the strength of authority letter from M/s. Railtrack Concrete Production Pvt. Ltd., Bihara attended the personal hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Silchar and submitted that the production started from February, 2007 was a trial production because the firm has develop necessary infrastructure facilities for manufacturing testing and inspection of mixed Gause Sleeper and they have started commercial production from 15-6-2007 after getting the necessary approval from the Railways Research Designs and Standards Organization, Lucknow. But they did not mention any thing about the trial production in their ER-1s or RG-1s. As per statute, the entry date in the RG-1 and dates shown in their ER-1 for production is taken to be their commercial production for the Central Excise assessee. The condition of testing or test report by the Railways Research Designs and Standards Organization (Quality assurance Civil Authority) is their internal arrangement, which has nothing to do with Central Excise provisions and procedures. In view of the above, I find that the assessee is not eligible for the benefit in terms of Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER M/s. Railtrack Concrete Production Pvt. Ltd., Bihara Station Road, P.O. Bihara, PIN-788817 Cachar, Assam is found not eligible for benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007. As such, I reject their application dated 10-8-2007. 14. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER M/s. Railtrack Concrete Production Pvt. Ltd., Bihara Station Road, P.O. Bihara, PIN-788817 Cachar, Assam is found not eligible for benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007. As such, I reject their application dated 10-8-2007. 14. In the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner held that both the appellant and the department had agreed that production commenced during February, 2007 but the only dispute was as to whether the said production could be termed as commercial production. The Commissioner found that the product produced during February, 2007 fetched a commercial consideration of Rs. 28.5 lakhs. Therefore, such production was held to be commercial production. The following is the relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals): In the instant case the dispute relates to date of commencement of commercial production there is no scope for interpretation of the language of the Notification. Both the appellant and department agreed that the production was commenced during February 2007. The only dispute remains whether the said production could be termed as "Commercial Production", I find that the product produced during February 2007 has cleared by the appellant against a commercial consideration of Rs. 28.5 lacs. It is not the case where clearance has been made without any commercial consideration for the purpose of testing/inspection. The appellant could not provide any forceful evidence to show that products produced during February 2007 was cleared without any commercial consideration. Therefore, the date of production of 4900 pcs valued at Rs. 28.5 lacs can safely be termed as the date of their commercial production. Hence, I find that the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Silchar is correct in disallowing the refund claim and benefit of exemption Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007. In view of the foregoing I find no infirmity in the order passed by the adjudicating authority and I see no reason to interfere with the order. Accordingly the appeal is rejected. 15. Before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the appellant that production of 4900 pieces of railway sleepers during the month of January, 2007 be treated as trial production as the goods produced were yet to be approved by the competent authority of the Railways. The Revenue however contended that commercial production had commenced in January, 2007, which was reflected in the excise returns and other documents. The Revenue however contended that commercial production had commenced in January, 2007, which was reflected in the excise returns and other documents. The Tribunal on consideration of the rival contentions recorded the finding that the appellant had manufactured 4900 railway sleepers valued at Rs. 28.5 lakhs in the month of January, 2007 and cleared to the railways, which was reflected in the record and the returns submitted. The Tribunal held as follows : 5..............In the present case the Appellant manufactured 4900 railway sleepers valued at Rs. 28.5 Lakhs, in the month of January 2007 and cleared to Railways. This production quantity was reflected in RG-1 record and ER-1 returns. There is no evidence on record to show that the sleepers were cleared for non-commercial consideration. As the appellant commenced commercial production prior to that mentioned in the notification hence are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 20/2007-C.E. From this it is admitted by the appellant that duty of excise is already recovered from the railways. In these circumstances we find no infirmity in the impugned order thereby the benefit of Notification is denied, the appeal is dismissed. Misc. application is also disposed of in same terms. 16. From the above it is evident that there is concurrent finding of fact by all the three authorities below that the appellant had commenced commercial production in January, 2007 and, therefore, was outside the purview of the notification dated 25-4-2007. There is a clear finding of fact that the appellant had manufactured 4900 numbers of railway sleepers in the month of January, 2007 and sold those to the railways at Rs. 28.5 lakhs, which is reflected in the excise returns. We do not find that there is any error or perversity in the above finding of fact recorded by the adjudicating authority which has been affirmed by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. Consequently, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the impugned decision of the Tribunal. In view thereof a detail examination of the cited decisions is considered not necessary. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.