2021 (2) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Commodity and area based exemption to excisable goods manufactured in a unit falling in specific khasra numbers in specified villages of specified tehsil in the State of Uttarakhand - Wrongful availment of benefit of Exemption Notification dated June 10, 2003 - khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi - HELD THAT - The Notification refers to tehsil Kichcha for these two khasras. According to the appellant, khasra numbers 54 and 55 in village Alakhdevi at the time of the issue of Notification dated June 10, 2003 were in tehsil Kichcha, but upon issue of the Notification dated February 11, 2004, when 70 villages from tehsil Kichcha were transferred to the tehsil Gadarpur, khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi came to be transferred to tehsil Gadarpur. khasra number 54 and 55 in village Alakhdevi, prior to February 11, 2004, were in tehsil Kichcha but upon issue of the Notification dated February 11, 2004 these khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi fall in tehsil Gadarpur. It is also clear that after the issue of the Notification dated February 11, 2004 tehsil Kichcha does not contain khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi. These Khasra numbers exist on the ground and have to fall in a certain tehsil - The Commissioner has gone strictly by the tehsil mentioned in the Notification dated June 10, 2003 and has held that it is only khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi of tehsil Kichcha that have been exempted from the whole duty of excise. The Commissioner failed to appreciate the developments that had taken place after the issue of the Exemption Notification dated June 10, 2003 namely that khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi which were initially in tehsil Kichcha were subsequently transferred to tehsil Gadarpur. The Commissioner has also referred to entry at serial number 22 of the Notification dated June 10, 2003 wherein village Barakheda is shown to be situated in tehsil Gadarpur, but as noticed above, upon issue of Notification dated February 11, 2004, 70 villages of tehsil Kichcha were transferred to tehsil Gadarpur. The Commissioner was, therefore, not justified in observing that since Gadarpur tehsil was also mentioned in the Notification dated June 10, 2003, plot numbers 54 and 55 would also have been shown in the said tehsil if that was the intention of the authority issuing the Notification - Such being the position, it is not possible to sustain the finding recorded by the Commissioner that since khasra numbers 54 and 55 of village Alakhdevi are not situated in tehsil Kichcha, the manufacturing unit of the appellant would not be entitled to exemption from the whole of the duty of the excise leviable thereon. The contention of the learned Authorised Representative of the Department that an Exemption Notification should be interpreted strictly is, therefore, not required to be examined in view of the aforesaid factual position that has emerged. The Department has filed Excise Appeal No. 50497 of 2019 to assail that part of the order passed by the Commissioner that has dropped the demand of duty for the reason that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. As the demand itself has been found to be not justified, it would not be necessary to examine the contention raised by the Department to assail this part of the order. Excise Appeal No. 50497 of 2019 filed by the Department is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Appeal allowed in part.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant's manufacturing unit is eligible for the benefit of the Exemption Notification dated June 10, 2003.
2. Whether the demand of duty confirmed by the Commissioner for the period January 2015 to June 2017 is justified.
3. Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand of duty for the period January 2012 to December 2014.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Exemption Notification:

The appellant claimed exemption from excise duty under the Notification dated June 10, 2003, which provided area-based exemptions for specific plots in Uttarakhand. The Notification specified that exemption was granted to plot numbers 54 and 55 situated in village Alakhdevi, tehsil Kichcha. However, the Commissioner denied the benefit, stating that the appellant's unit was situated in village Alakhdevi, tehsil Gadarpur, not Kichcha.

The appellant argued that at the time of the Notification in 2003, the plots were indeed in tehsil Kichcha. However, a subsequent Notification dated February 11, 2004, by the Uttaranchal Government upgraded Gadarpur to tehsil status, transferring 70 villages, including Alakhdevi, from Kichcha to Gadarpur. This was supported by the Census of India 2011 and certificates from various state departments and the Superintendent of Central Excise.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner failed to consider these developments and the factual position that the plots were initially in tehsil Kichcha and later transferred to Gadarpur. Therefore, the appellant's unit should be eligible for the exemption.

2. Justification of Duty Demand:

The Commissioner confirmed the demand of ?4,92,85,898/- for the period January 2015 to June 2017, denying the exemption based on the tehsil discrepancy. However, the Tribunal set aside this part of the order, stating that the Commissioner did not appreciate the factual transfer of the plots from Kichcha to Gadarpur. Thus, the demand of duty was found to be unjustified.

3. Extended Period of Limitation:

The Commissioner dropped the demand of ?5,69,29,954/- for the period January 2012 to December 2014, stating that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The Department appealed against this decision. However, since the Tribunal found the demand itself to be unjustified, it was unnecessary to examine the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the demand of duty, and dismissed the Department's appeal regarding the extended period of limitation. The manufacturing unit of the appellant was found to be eligible for the exemption under the Notification dated June 10, 2003, considering the subsequent administrative changes.

← Previous Next →