JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The facts relevant for the purpose of the present Central Excise Appeal have been recorded in the previous orders, particularly in the order dated January 27, 2022. However, the essential features require to be repeated. 2. The appellant manufactures soya chunks under the brand name of Gulab. The first dispute between the parties is as to when the appellant commenced manufacturing the product under the Gulab brand. This is relevant since the exemption claimed by the appellant under the Central Excise notification does not extend the benefit to products manufactured under a brand name not owned by the manufacturer. In other words, if a manufacturer produces the product which is marketed under a brand name not belonging to the manufacturer, the manufacturer would not be entitled to the exemption. 3. There is no dispute that the manufacture of the relevant goods commenced in 2002-03 and the appellant appears to have laboured under the misconception that the product was not liable to excise duty. In 2006 the appellant made enquiries with the excise authorities and, on the appellant's declaration as to the nature of the product that it manufactured, the excise authorities opined that duty attracted was nil. However, in February, 2007, the excise authorities discovered the exact nature of the product and that it attracted excise duty. Shortly upon the appellant being informed that the appellant was liable to pay excise duty on the soya chunks manufactured by it, by February 27, 2007 an amount of money was deposited by the appellant and it was represented by the appellant to the department that the entirety of the excise duty leviable, together with interest thereon, had been deposited. 4. However, a subsequent demand was raised by the excise authorities on April 7, 2008 for the duty payable for the goods in respect of financial years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. 5. The first issue that arises is as to whether such demand could have been made at all, particularly in respect of the period more than a year prior to the date of the demand. 5. The first issue that arises is as to whether such demand could have been made at all, particularly in respect of the period more than a year prior to the date of the demand. As noticed in the previous order, ordinarily a demand may be made to realise the duty for a period of one year from the date that the duty became payable; but an exception is carved out for a demand to be made for an earlier period if it is demonstrated by the department that the manufacturer intended to evade the duty. 6. According to the appellant, since the appellant was entitled to an exemption, in the sense that it would be reimbursed the excise duty that it had paid, in view of the existing Central Excise notifications, the question of intending to evade duty could not have arisen since the appellant would have been reimbursed the excise duty paid for the relevant product. On behalf of the department it is submitted that it may not be absolutely correct to say that the entire quantum of the excise duty would be reimbursed to the manufacturer and the scheme was modified from time to time. According to the department, the excise duty component would be reimbursed upon deducting the cenvat credit already claimed. The department also says that at a subsequent stage, the extent of exemption granted was that the amount reimbursed would be only to the extent of the excise duty on the value added to the product in the course of the manufacture. 7. More importantly, the department points out that not every manufacturer in Meghalaya would be entitled to the exemption by way of reimbursement or otherwise. In such context, several notifications published by the Central Excise authorities have been relied upon to demonstrate that the initial scheme was restricted to certain areas of Assam and Tripura and, later, designated places in Meghalaya were also included. According to the department, the manufacturing unit of the appellant is not located within any area designated by the applicable notification for the appellant to claim exemption by way of reimbursement. 8. This aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration, whether in the course of the order-in-original being passed or in the appellate order of the Tribunal. According to the department, the manufacturing unit of the appellant is not located within any area designated by the applicable notification for the appellant to claim exemption by way of reimbursement. 8. This aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration, whether in the course of the order-in-original being passed or in the appellate order of the Tribunal. This is a question of fact on which there can be no two opinions and a physical verification is necessary to ascertain whether the manufacturing unit of the appellant falls within the area designated in the applicable notification for the appellant to be entitled to exemption by way of reimbursement. 9. The second aspect of the matter on which there is no discussion in the order of the Appellate Tribunal pertains to the disqualification of the appellant to be entitled to exemption on the ground that the appellant manufactured the product under the brand name of another. According to the appellant, it started manufacturing the soya chunks under the Gulab brand name with effect from December 1, 2006. The Appellate Tribunal has referred to the oral evidence of a regular customer of the appellant which appears to be a rather sweeping statement to the effect that the appellant has always been engaged in manufacturing soya chunks under the Gulab brand. The Appellate Tribunal placed great credence on such statement though there were no documents in support of the assertion nor any bill or voucher or the like relied upon by the department that would reveal that the appellant had manufactured soya chunks under the Gulab brand prior to December 1, 2006. The Appellate Tribunal also referred to the statements of two Sharma directors of the appellant, but such statements do not reveal the manufacture of the Gulab brand by the appellant prior to December 1, 2006. 10. When a person claims a benefit under any government scheme and the authorities seek to deny the eligibility of such person to obtain such benefit, the onus is on the authorities to demonstrate why the person would not be entitled to the benefit. As noticed above, it has been the consistent stand of the appellant that it did not manufacture the Gulab brand soya chunks prior to December 1, 2006. As noticed above, it has been the consistent stand of the appellant that it did not manufacture the Gulab brand soya chunks prior to December 1, 2006. It was, thus, incumbent on the department to deny the appellant exemption for the period prior to December 1, 2006 only upon cogent material being produced in such regard, whether by way of bills or vouchers or unimpeachable statements or otherwise. 11. The third issue that requires to be looked into and answered is related to the appellant being entitled to the exemption or not. The wording of the applicable notification exempts a manufacturing unit as an SSI till such time it attains a turnover of Rs.1 crore. In the present case, the initial turnover in 2003-04 was extremely low and same picked up only in 2004-05. In the event the appellant was entitled to exemption as claimed, it requires to be ascertained when the appellant's manufacturing unit exceeded the turnover of Rs.1 crore for the excise duty to be claimed only thereafter. 12. The three key aspects of the matter have not been addressed in the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated January 23, 2019 in the appeal arising out of the order-in-original of March 16, 2009. These issues cannot be conveniently addressed in the present proceedings which are conducted on summary basis on affidavit evidence. Further, as to whether a person is entitled to an exemption or not based on the geographical location of the manufacturing unit, is essentially question of fact that has to be ascertained. 13. Accordingly, the order impugned dated January 23, 2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal with a request to render the opinion on the three key aspects indicated herein and on any other issue that may be relevant for the purpose of adjudication. The Tribunal is also requested to pass its reasoned order within three months of the receipt of the authenticated copy of this order, particularly since the demand pertains to the period of 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. 14. Central Excise Appeal No.4 of 2019 and MC (Central Excise Ap) No.3 of 2019 are disposed of without any order as to costs.