2013 (4) TMI 26 - HC - Central Excise

Area based exemption - North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007 - manufacture of excisable goods namely, Mixed Gauge Sleeper and Waste of HTC Wire. - Held that - In the present case the Appellant manufactured railway sleepers in the month of January 2007 and cleared to Railways. This production quantity was reflected in RG-1 record and ER-1 returns. There is no evidence on record to show that the sleepers were cleared for non-commercial consideration. As the appellant commenced commercial production prior to that mentioned in the notification hence are not entitled for the benefit of Notification. In these circumstances we find no infirmity in the impugned order thereby the benefit of Notification is denied, the appeal is dismissed. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of exemption claim under Central Excise Act, 1944 based on the commencement of commercial production as per NEIIPP, 2007.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant sought exemption from Central Excise duty under NEIIPP, 2007 for goods manufactured in new industrial units starting production between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2017.
2. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim, stating the appellant did not qualify for the exemption.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, determining that production in February 2007, which generated Rs. 28.5 lakhs, constituted commercial production.
4. The Tribunal affirmed that the appellant commenced commercial production in January 2007, evidenced by manufacturing 4900 railway sleepers worth Rs. 28.5 lakhs.
5. All three authorities concluded that the appellant's production in January 2007 constituted commercial production, rendering them ineligible for the NEIIPP, 2007 benefits.
6. The appellant argued that the production in January 2007 was trial production pending approval by the Railways, but the Revenue contended it was commercial production, supported by excise returns and documents.
7. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's production details in January 2007, rejecting the appeal and confirming the denial of benefits under NEIIPP, 2007.
8. The High Court found no error in the factual findings of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal, stating no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision.

This detailed analysis outlines the progression of the case from the rejection of the appellant's exemption claim to the final dismissal of the appeal by the High Court based on the factual findings regarding the commencement of commercial production as per the NEIIPP, 2007.