2017 (8) TMI 1275 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption - N/N. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 - assessee-Appellants have undertaken 25% expansion which was denied by the adjudicating authority - Held that - an identical issue has come up before this Tribunal in assessee-Appellants own case Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh Versus M/s. Greenply Industries Ltd. 2016 (8) TMI 841 - CESTAT KOLKATA , where it was held that in view of the clarification dated 15.10.2009 discussed by the Adjudicating authority it cannot be said that no expansion in the installed capacity could be enhanced by the Respondent. There could be various stages by which installed capacities could be enhanced by the appellant so long as it remains within the licenced capacity decided by State Forest department in the light of Supreme Court s judgement dated 15.01.1998. There is also no requirement under Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 that licensed capacity fixed by State forest department has to be taken into consideration while allowing expansion and that appellant should in one go install all machinery required to cater to the licensed capacity sanctioned - benefit of notification allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed by Department/assessee-Appellants against Order-in-Appeal; Denial of expansion claim by adjudicating authority; Relief granted in some cases; Identical issue previously decided in favor of assessee-Appellants; Arguments presented by counsels for both parties; Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and expert opinions; Review of previous orders and certifications; Application of case laws and judicial pronouncements; Final decision on the appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment involves multiple appeals filed by the Department and assessee-Appellants against Order-in-Appeal decisions dated in 2013 and 2014 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh, concerning the period from May 2010 to January 2014. The assessee-Appellants, engaged in plywood manufacturing in Nagaland, were enjoying area-based exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE. The central issue revolved around the denial of a 25% expansion claim by the adjudicating authority, leading to conflicting decisions in different cases.

During the proceedings, counsels for both sides presented arguments, and upon reviewing the material on record, the Tribunal noted a similar issue previously decided in favor of the assessee-Appellants in their own case. The Tribunal referred to expert opinions, including a Chartered Engineer's Certificate and a report from a Central Government Institute, to support the expansion claim. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of expert opinions and the lack of contrary evidence from the Department to challenge the certifications provided by the assessee-Appellants.

Furthermore, the Tribunal analyzed the application of relevant legal provisions, including Notification No. 32/99-CE, and cited various case laws to support the allowance of expansion even without adding additional machinery. The judgment highlighted the significance of following established legal principles uniformly across different cases and states. The Tribunal also scrutinized the review process of previous orders and certifications, emphasizing the finality of decisions not challenged or reviewed by the appropriate authority.

Ultimately, the Tribunal relied on its earlier order and allowed the expansion claim of the assessee-Appellants. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, while the appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants were allowed. The judgment concluded by disposing of the cross-objection accordingly, providing a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues and expert opinions involved in the case.