2001 (9) TMI 702 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 32/99-C.E. to the cigarette factory of the respondents.
2. Whether the unit at Amingaon is a new industrial unit or a relocated existing unit.
3. Compliance with the Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 32/99-C.E.:

In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the applicability of the exemption Notification No. 32/99-C.E., dated 8-7-99 (as amended) to the cigarette factory of the respondents at Amingaon in the Export Promotion Industrial Park (EPIP) of Assam. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, in two separate adjudication orders, held that the respondents were covered by the conditions subject to which the exemption under Notification No. 32/99-C.E. was available and sanctioned refunds accordingly. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this view and dismissed the Review Appeals of the Department. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the benefit of Notification No. 32/99-C.E. was not available to the respondents as the unit was not a new industrial unit but a relocated one.

2. New Industrial Unit or Relocated Existing Unit:

The main ground urged by the Revenue is that no new industrial unit had been set up by the respondents at Amingaon and the unit had been set up in violation of the provisions of Section 11 of the Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951. The respondents had transferred machinery from their existing Guwahati factory, and no manufacturing license had been obtained from the Industries Department for the new location. The Revenue argued that the exemption should only be available if the investment for organizing the production facilities was new, which was not the case here. The respondents countered that all requirements of the Notification had been met, including the locational criteria, and that no machines from the old unit were transferred to the new premises. They also argued that the exemption Notification should be interpreted based on its plain language without adding conditions not explicitly stated.

3. Compliance with the Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951:

The respondents obtained Central Excise registration for their factory at Amingaon on 25-11-99 and a provisional registration certificate from the Directorate of Industries, Government of Assam, on 29-10-99. Their commercial production started on 15-12-99, and the benefit of the exemption Notification was extended to them. The Assistant Commissioner, after verification, refunded the duty paid from the account current, observing that the respondents were a new industrial unit eligible for exemption from excise duty by way of refund. The appellate authority upheld this view, stating that all conditions of the exemption had been fulfilled by the respondents.

Additional Grounds and Legal Precedents:

The Revenue also argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed a similar appeal in the past, which was pending before the Tribunal. They also mentioned a show-cause notice issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, alleging irregular availment of the exemption benefits by the respondents. However, the Tribunal noted that the present dispute should be settled based on the facts and circumstances brought on record in these proceedings, and refrained from making observations regarding the show-cause notice.

The respondents cited various decisions to support their contentions, including that the expressions used in the Notification should not be interpreted based on definitions given in circulars of the Ministry of Industry and that no conditions not mentioned in the Notification should be read into it.

Conclusion:

Taking all relevant facts, circumstances, and case law into consideration, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and rejected it. The Tribunal upheld the view that the respondents' unit at Amingaon was a new industrial unit and that all conditions of the exemption Notification No. 32/99-C.E. had been fulfilled.

← Previous Next →