2017 (11) TMI 1388 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - Held that - the issue has come up before the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the earlier period 2017 (11) TMI 1314 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that 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 to Unit-II for manufacturing and clearing excisable goods without duty payment.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the original order dated 28.02.2017 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Dehradun concerning the admissibility of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE for Unit-II. The Tribunal observed that an identical issue had been addressed in the appellant's earlier case, where it was clarified that each section or part of a factory manufacturing a different commodity should be treated as a separate manufacturing unit. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE is unit-wise, not factory-wise, and eligibility for exemption should be determined based on individual units. The decision in the case of M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd was referenced, highlighting that the capacity expansion of 25% or more should be considered for the specific unit seeking exemption, not the entire factory. The Tribunal also referred to the clarification by CBEC regarding the application of the notification to new assembly lines within an existing factory.

The Tribunal further discussed the interpretation of terms "factory" and "industrial unit" within the notification. It was noted that different terms were used in different contexts, and a summary conclusion based on inference and presumption was not supported. The Tribunal agreed with previous decisions that terms "unit" and "factory" cannot be equated for the purpose of the notification. The definition of "factory" under the Central Excise Act was considered broader and could not be applied to units involved in manufacturing specified goods. Each division of a factory producing different items or processes should be treated as a unit of the factory. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found the original order not legally sustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of treating different sections of a factory as separate manufacturing units for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. The decision highlighted the need to assess eligibility for exemption on a unit-wise basis rather than considering the entire factory as a single entity.