2016 (10) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Area based exemption - Notification No. 50/2003-CE requires increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% to grant exemption - various documents like certificate of Chartered Engineer Capacity Certificate by the General Manager DIC Kotdwar details of procurement of capital goods etc. deposited by appellant in support of their claim - whether denial of exemption justified? - Held that - the appellants are in regular communication with the department regarding their claim for exemption under the said Notification. As could be seen from the findings of the original authority various doubts and suspicion have been raised against some of the documents and certificate submitted by the appellant. It is noted that the appellants have explained their position vis-a-vis these doubts. The appellant originally had capacity of 3 MT which was increased to 4 MT in the second stage of upgradation and overhauling. The appellants claimed to have changed the rating of solid state generator from 2000 KW to 2500 KW various other changes were made to increase the cooling of the assess generator. The furnace crucible capacity was increased 4 MT to 5 MT. The changes were carried out only in one crucible. These things have been explained by M/s Electrotherm (India) Limited who carried out the said upgradation work. The department did make reference to M/s Electrotherm who confirmed the said expansion and supplied the supporting invoice for the same. The Chartered Engineer appointed by the department appeared before the Tribunal who confirmed that the revised capacity of the appellant as 5.8 MT. The proceedings by the department and the impugned orders heavily relied on certain suspicion and doubts raised against the claims by the appellant without due counter verification to categorically establish the correct expanded capacity by the Revenue - the denial of exemption is not justified - appellant s claim of expanded capacity cannot be rejected on perusal of documents placed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Installation of additional machinery and furnace capacity enhancement.
2. Definition and scale of substantial expansion.
3. Verification of imported items and their entry in statutory records.
4. Enhancement of electrical power load and installation of transformer.
5. Discrepancies in certificates issued by Chartered Engineer and General Manager, DIC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Installation of Additional Machinery and Furnace Capacity Enhancement:
The main appellant, engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, claimed exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE, asserting a 25% enhancement of production capacity. The Revenue disputed this, alleging no additional machinery installation and only minor upgrades to existing equipment. The original authority held that the appellant did not fulfill the notification's conditions, confirming duty demands and penalties.

2. Definition and Scale of Substantial Expansion:
The Revenue argued that the appellant's claimed expansion did not meet the substantial expansion criteria comparable to a new unit, as per the Tribunal's definition. The appellants countered that their upgrades, supported by certificates and documents, met the required scale. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's expansion was certified by a Chartered Engineer and the General Manager, DIC, and that the Revenue's reliance on another Chartered Engineer's opinion was inconsistent.

3. Verification of Imported Items and Their Entry in Statutory Records:
The Revenue pointed out discrepancies in the entry of certain items in the Trade Tax Check Post records, suggesting these items were not properly imported. The Tribunal found that the department could have easily cross-verified these items but failed to do so, and thus, the appellant's claims could not be dismissed on this basis.

4. Enhancement of Electrical Power Load and Installation of Transformer:
The Revenue claimed that the appellant did not enhance their electrical power load or install a new transformer, which was necessary for the claimed capacity expansion. The appellant argued that their existing load was sufficient for the upgraded capacity, supported by quotations from Electrotherm. The Tribunal found no evidence contradicting the appellant's claim, noting that the department did not produce any technical verification.

5. Discrepancies in Certificates Issued by Chartered Engineer and General Manager, DIC:
The original authority doubted the certificates issued by the Chartered Engineer and General Manager, DIC, citing inconsistencies and lack of scientific verification. The appellants provided detailed rebuttals, explaining that the certificates were based on physical verification and practical observations. The Tribunal noted that the department's doubts were based on assumptions without concrete evidence and that the appellant's documents were consistent and credible.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's case was based on suspicions and doubts without proper verification. The appellant's claims of expanded capacity were supported by substantial evidence, including third-party confirmations and detailed documentation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals and granting the claimed exemptions.

Pronouncement:
The judgment was pronounced on 27.09.2016, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals.