2006 (1) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for SSI Notification benefit based on the location of the unit in a rural area.
2. Interpretation of the term "rural area" in the context of land revenue records and government certificates.
3. Dispute regarding the classification of the unit's location as urban or rural within the Bangalore Urban District.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision granting the SSI Notification benefit to the assessee, arguing that the unit, located in a village, falls under Bangalore Urban District and thus should not be considered eligible for the benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted land revenue records and a certificate from the Gram Panchayat to determine the unit's location in a rural area, making it eligible for the Notification benefit.

2. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere naming of a district as Bangalore Urban does not automatically classify all areas within it as urban. The Tribunal highlighted that the administrative division of Bangalore into urban and rural areas did not change the nature of individual towns, taluks, hublies, and villages. The Certificate provided by the Government specifically identified the unit as situated in a village according to land revenue records, supporting the Commissioner (Appeals) decision as legally sound.

3. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the unit's location within a village, as evidenced by land revenue records and the Government certificate, aligns with the definition of a rural area. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision as correct and lawful. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court, upholding the eligibility of the unit for the SSI Notification benefit based on its rural area location.