2023 (12) TMI 519 - AT - Central Excise

Enhancement of installed capacity by more than 25% after 24/12/1997 - substantial expansion of more than 25% took place or not - entitlement for exemption under N/N. 33/99 dated 08/07/1999 - HELD THAT - The Appellant has heavily relied on the Certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer vide their Report dated 25/06/2004 - the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the Chartered Engineer Certificate and all the factual details in a detailed manner and has held that it appears that the Appellant has intentionally excluded this capacity from being considered for inclusion in the installed capacity of the factory in the pre-increase stage, and concealed material information from the Department. Consequently, considering this factor, the resultant increase in installed capacity after the expansion ( increase ) was found to be mere Four percent (4%), which is not sufficient. There are no necessity to interfere with the detailed findings and the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein he has considered all the factual details and Chartered Engineer s Certificate and the statutory provisions. Appeal filed by appellant dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves determining whether the Appellant qualifies for exemption from Excise Duty based on substantial expansion of their factory's installed capacity by more than 25% as per Notification No. 33/99 dated 08/07/1999.

Issue 1: Capacity Expansion Claim

The Appellant claimed an increase in installed capacity by more than 25% after 24/12/1997, based on a Chartered Engineer's report. However, the Department disputed this claim, alleging manipulation in including the capacity of a pre-existing ECP Dryer not accounted for in the original capacity assessment.

Issue 2: Evaluation of Chartered Engineer's Report

The Lower Authority pointed out discrepancies in the Chartered Engineer's report regarding the installation date of certain equipment, leading to questions about the accuracy of the capacity increase calculation. The Appellant's reliance on the report was challenged, emphasizing the need for further scrutiny before blindly accepting it.

Issue 3: Contradictory Claims by the Appellant

The Appellant's inconsistent statements regarding the use of the ECP Dryer for manufacturing or 'gapping' purposes raised doubts about the credibility of their claims. The Lower Authority rightly rejected the Appellant's self-contradictory assertions, highlighting the importance of maintaining consistency in submissions.

Issue 4: Revival of Previous Claim

The Appellant's attempt to revive a previous claim for exemption, which was voluntarily withdrawn and refunded, was deemed improper. The Court emphasized that the earlier claim had lapsed, and the Appellant could not pursue it again, especially considering the inadequacy of the capacity increase post-expansion.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, dismissing the Appellant's Appeal due to insufficient evidence supporting the claimed capacity expansion. The detailed scrutiny of the Chartered Engineer's report and the inconsistencies in the Appellant's submissions led to the rejection of their exemption claim under the relevant notification.