2009 (2) TMI 176 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption - Notification No. 39/2001-C.E., dated 31-7-2001 - Kutch district of Gujarat held that - Revenue cannot argue against the clarifications issued by the Board - subsequent emergence of a new product using the same plant and machinery will not make the assessee disentitled to the Notification - plain corrugated sheets were manufactured before the cut off date and the entire plant and machinery was installed before the said date - Subsequent manufacture of boxes out of corrugated sheets wilt not amount to production of an altogether new and different product so as to deny the given benefit

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of area based Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. - Denial of refund on specific products - Requirement of certificate for new unit setup - Benefit extension to related products - Applicability of Board Circular and Tribunal's decisions.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals filed by an assessee and the Revenue regarding the interpretation and application of area based Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. The assessee, a manufacturing unit in Kutch, Gujarat, availed benefits under the said Notification for setting up a new unit and starting commercial production before 31-12-2005. The dispute arose concerning the refund of duty paid on specific products - Stearic Acid, Crude Glycerin, Glycerin, and Pitch. The denial of refund was based on these products not being explicitly mentioned in the certificate issued by the Committee. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit for Stearic Acid, considering it a Fatty Acid, but denied it for other products, leading to appeals from both parties.

The Notification required a certificate from a Committee confirming the unit as new and set up within the specified period. The assessee satisfied the investment and production commencement conditions. The crucial issue was whether the benefit should be extended to related products not explicitly mentioned in the certificate. The assessee argued that as long as the certificate validated the new unit, benefits should apply to all products. They contended that Crude Glycerin, Glycerin, and Pitch were downstream products of Fatty Acids, manufactured using the same machinery, citing relevant Board Circular and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal analyzed the Board Circular clarifying that if a unit produces new products using existing machinery, the benefit should apply. The Tribunal emphasized that subsequent production of related products from the same machinery does not disqualify the unit from the Notification. As the assessee met the investment and production criteria without adding new machinery, the benefit was extended to the related products. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, granting them relief.

Given the allowance of benefits to related products, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to extend the benefit to Fatty Acid (Stearic Acid). As the benefit was available for downstream products, the Revenue's appeal was rejected. The Tribunal concluded that the benefit under the Notification applied to Crude Glycerin, Glycerin, and Pitch, obtained through further processing of Fatty Acid. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the pronouncement made on 12-2-2009.