2010 (7) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Area based exemption - respondents are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 39/2001-C.E - denial of 50% refund on the production of detergent bars - Commissioner (Appeals) stated that the installation of the equipment has not led to any enhancement of the production capacity - equipments were only to improve efficiency to ease the problem of storage and handling of raw materials - Revenue could not produce any document or any evidence which shows enhancement of production capacity No infirmity with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order - appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of 50% refund on the production of detergent bars due to installation of new machinery.
2. Refund claims for soda ash dense.
3. Refund claim for April 2008 under the amended notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of 50% Refund on Production of Detergent Bars:
The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order which set aside the lower adjudicating authority's decision to deny 50% refund on the production of detergent bars. The lower authority had based its decision on the installation of new machinery (silo, vibrator sieve, weigh dropper, vapor separator, cyclone, and sigma mixture) after 31-12-2005, which allegedly increased production capacity. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that these installations did not enhance production capacity but were meant to improve efficiency and handle raw materials better. The findings were supported by a Chartered Engineer's certificate stating that the installed capacity remained unchanged. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to counter these findings or prove an increase in production capacity. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as devoid of merits.

2. Refund Claims for Soda Ash Dense:
The lower adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claims related to soda ash dense, which was manufactured after 31-12-2005 following the installation of new equipment. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this rejection, subject to verification of documents and reversal of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not contest this part of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which had thus attained finality. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on this issue.

3. Refund Claim for April 2008 under the Amended Notification:
The respondent argued that their refund claim for April 2008 should be governed by the original Notification No. 39/2001-C.E., as it stood when the unit was set up, and not by the amended Notification No. 16/2008-C.E. The respondent cited the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Sal Steel Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., which held that new units set up under the original notification should be entitled to the exemption without restrictions imposed by subsequent notifications. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, allowing the respondent's cross-objection and setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order to the extent it denied the refund claim for April 2008 under the amended notification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the denial of 50% refund on detergent bars and the refund claims for soda ash dense, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It also allowed the respondent's cross-objection, ensuring that the refund claim for April 2008 would be governed by the original notification. The appeal and cross-objection were accordingly disposed of.