2017 (11) TMI 1314 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - Area Based Exemption - The main appellant obtained Central Excise registration in respect of Unit-I and filed a declaration on 21.04.2008 for availing area based exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 in respect of Unit-II - Held that - identical issue decided in appellant own case M/s Victoria Automotive Inc., Sh Daleep Suneja, Unit Head, Sh. HS Banga, Partner, Sh. Naveen Kumar Maheshwari, Hod, And Sh. Baljeet Singh Rawat Versus CCE, Dehradun 2017 (9) TMI 934 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that All such units are necessary part of a factory, if located in the contagious area. Each division of a factory manufacturing different identifiable items or undertaking different identifiable processes will have to be considered as a unit of the factory and exemption to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 for Unit-II manufacturing excisable goods in Uttarakhand without duty payment.

Analysis:
The appeals were against the order-in-original dated 28.02.2014 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I, concerning the period from April 2008 to September 2012. The central issue revolved around the admissibility of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE for Unit-II, where goods were manufactured and cleared without duty payment due to the factory's location in Uttarakhand. The Department had not provided the exemption during the period in question, leading to the filing of the appeals.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate and the respondent's representative presented their arguments. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same appellant, where it was observed that the identity of the factory was not directly relevant to determining the exemption under Notification No. 50/03. The Tribunal noted factual errors in the original authority's decision and emphasized that each section or part of a factory manufacturing different commodities should be treated as a separate manufacturing unit, eligible for exemption independently.

The Tribunal cited a clarification by the CBEC regarding the application of the notification, highlighting that even a new assembly line within an existing factory could be eligible for exemption. Referring to previous judgments, including one by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal reiterated that different terms like "unit" and "factory" should not be equated for the purpose of the notification, as the exemption was unit-wise, not factory-wise.

Ultimately, after careful consideration of the impugned order and the appellant's submissions, the Tribunal found the order unsustainable and allowed the appeals, setting aside the original decision. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that different identifiable units within a factory should be considered separately for exemption eligibility under Notification No. 50/2003-CE, emphasizing the distinction between "unit" and "factory" in the context of the exemption provision.