2017 (6) TMI 702 - AT - Central Excise

Area based exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - denial on the ground that the respondent has not filed the due declaration as prescribed in the Notification, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of the said Notification - Held that - As the respondent has intimated to the department, the change of their existing unit to new site and the area of new site is covered in the Notification. In that circumstances, the ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly granted the benefit of the notification - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against granting of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE due to change of factory premises.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute where the respondent, engaged in manufacturing electronic items, shifted their factory premises to a new location and intimated the department about the change. The Revenue appealed against the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s decision to grant the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE to the respondent.

2. The Revenue's argument was based on the fact that the respondent did not file the due declaration as required when informing the department about the change of address. The adjudicating authority had denied the benefit of the exemption notification on these grounds, stating that the respondent had not fulfilled the prescribed declaration requirements.

3. The Ld. Commissioner (A) held that the respondent had not set up a new unit but only changed their factory premises, and the declaration had been filed before the shift. The Commissioner concluded that the respondent's action of changing the factory premises did not disentitle them from the exemption under the said Notification.

4. The Appellate Tribunal considered the argument presented by the respondent, emphasizing that there was no provision in the Notification requiring a fresh declaration when an existing unit is shifted to a new location covered by the Notification. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s decision, stating that shifting an existing unit to a new site does not mean a new unit has been set up, especially when the new site falls under the same Notification.

5. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s decision, stating that the respondent had duly informed the department about the shift and filed the necessary declaration for the financial year in question. Therefore, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, decisions, and reasoning presented in the judgment regarding the dispute over granting exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE due to the change of factory premises by the respondent.