2001 (6) TMI 545 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of the conditions for availing exemption under Notification No. 32/99-C.E.
2. Validity of setting up a new industrial unit without a license under the Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.
3. Application of conditions stipulated in different notifications for availing benefits.

Issue 1: The first issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the conditions for availing exemption under Notification No. 32/99-C.E. The Revenue argued that the Respondents did not satisfy the conditions laid out in the notification, specifically regarding the establishment of a new industrial unit after a certain date. The Senior Advocate for the Revenue emphasized that compliance with all conditions of the exemption notification is necessary for entitlement to benefits, citing relevant case law to support this argument.

Issue 2: The second issue concerns the validity of setting up a new industrial unit without obtaining a license under the Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951. The Revenue contended that the Respondents did not have a license under the Act for the new unit at Amingaon, thus making them ineligible for the exemption. The argument was supported by references to specific sections of the Act and definitions of a "New Industrial Unit."

Issue 3: The final issue involves the application of conditions stipulated in different notifications for availing benefits. The Respondent argued that the conditions specified in the Notification dated 1st June, 1998, regarding the scheme of Central Grant of subsidy for industrial units in the North Eastern Region, should not be made applicable for availing the benefit of Notification No. 32/99-C.E. The Respondent's Senior Counsel cited case law to support the contention that the plain wordings of the notification should control the grant of benefits without adding extraneous conditions.

The judgment, delivered by the Appellate Tribunal, upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Respondents were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 32/99-C.E. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner had issued specific orders granting the exemption, and subsequent review orders did not alter these decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the importance of following the provisions of the notification and the specific orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The judgment highlighted the need for strict interpretation in fiscal matters and the importance of adhering to the express language of notifications for granting benefits.