2017 (6) TMI 756 - AT - Central Excise

Substantial expansion of installed capacity - benefit of N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - The sole allegation of the Revenue is that as the said Village Tehrara is not mentioned in the Annexure-II of the N/N. 56/2002 ibid, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of said notification - denial also on the ground that the date of employment increased is not mentioned in the certificate - Held that - We have gone through the certificate issued by GM, DIC which clearly shows the date of expansion as 15.05.2007. Therefore, the understanding of the Revenue is misplaced that there is no expansion. Accordingly, this observation of the revenue is held as not sustainable. Regarding the location, it is found that there is no village in the name of Trehara and it is Tarore and if falls in Khasra No. 48min, Tehsil and District Kathua, which is entitled to the benefit of notification. The respondent is entitled for exemption - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 based on the location of the unit and employment expansion.

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the grant of exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE to the respondent by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue contended that the respondent was not entitled to the exemption as the location of the unit was not listed in the Annexure-II of the notification, and the employment expansion was not adequately certified. The respondent's unit was situated in a village named Trehara, which was disputed as it was initially confused with Tarore. The Revenue argued that the employment expansion was not properly documented, leading to the denial of the exemption.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre clearly stated the date of expansion as 15.05.2007, contradicting the Revenue's claim of no expansion. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that there was confusion regarding the village name, which was later clarified by the State Revenue authorities confirming the unit's location in village Trehara. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) correctly extended the benefit of the notification to the respondent based on these clarifications and the substantial expansion undertaken by the respondent.

After considering the arguments from both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent was indeed eligible for exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the respondent's unit fell within the specified criteria for the exemption, despite the initial discrepancies regarding the village name and employment expansion certification. The decision was based on the proper interpretation of the relevant documents and clarifications provided by the State Revenue authorities, affirming the respondent's entitlement to the exemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, ruling in favor of the respondent and dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the grant of exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate documentation and proper verification of location details and employment expansion for determining eligibility for tax exemptions under specified notifications.