2017 (7) TMI 389 - AT - Central Excise

Substantial increase in installed capacity - N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - Revenue is of the view that a certificate has not been issued by the General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre, therefore, they are not entitled to avail benefit of exemption N/N. 56/2002 ibid - Held that - the certificate has been issued by the General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre in terms of para 3(b) (ii) of the N/N. 56/2002 ibid and only clarification to that certificate has been clarified by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In that circumstance, it cannot be said that the respondent has not produced necessary certificate issued by the General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly allowed the benefit of exemption N/N. 56/2002 ibid to the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 regarding the requirement of a certificate from the General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre for availing benefits.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order where the Ld. Commissioner (A) allowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 to the respondent. The respondent had applied for the exemption on 7.11.2006 and was required to produce a certificate from the General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre, Kathua, confirming an increase of more than 25% in regular employment. The Revenue contended that as no such certificate was issued, the respondent was not entitled to the exemption. However, after verifying the documents, the Ld. Commissioner (A) granted the benefit of the exemption to the respondent, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

The Ld. AR argued that the certificate issued by the General Manager did not clarify whether the increase in employees was on a regular basis or not. The Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise raised a query in this regard, which remained unanswered by the General Manager. Consequently, the Ld. AR contended that the respondent should not be entitled to the exemption.

Upon examination of the records, the Tribunal found that the certificate dated 21.11.2006 confirmed an increase in employment from 10 to 13 in the respondent's unit. Although the certificate did not explicitly state that the increase was in regular employees, the query was resolved by the Labour Department, confirming the increase based on the records of the last 5 years. The Tribunal clarified that the certificate was issued by the General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre as per the Notification's requirements, and the clarification by the Assistant Labour Commissioner did not alter this fact. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s decision to grant the exemption to the respondent.

Conclusively, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 to the respondent.