2018 (9) TMI 1192 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption denied - N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - Cut-off date - period October, 2011 to September, 2012 - denial on the ground that the appellant had not started their commercial production before the cutoff date as provided under the said notification i.e. 31.03.2010 - In appellant own case for earlier period in the case of M/S VAIBHAV ISPAT PVT LTD VERSUS CC CE, MEERUT-I 2015 (8) TMI 59 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , it was held that the commercial production started before 31.03.2010 and as such the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the exemption in terms of the said area based notification. Following the decision, the appellant was entitled to exemption of said notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of area based exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE for the period October 2011 to September 2012 due to not starting commercial production before the cutoff date as provided under the notification.

Analysis:

The judgment in question addresses the issue of denying the benefit of area based exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE to the appellant for the period October 2011 to September 2012. The Lower Authority confirmed the demand against the assessee by asserting that the commercial production did not commence before the cutoff date of 31.03.2010 as stipulated in the notification. However, the appellant argued that a previous Tribunal decision in their case for the period from March 2010 to September 2011 had already established that commercial production had indeed started before the cutoff date. The Tribunal, in Final Order No.51590/2015-EX[DB] dated 12.05.2015, had ruled in favor of the appellant, granting them the benefit of exemption under the said notification. The present impugned order pertains to a subsequent period, and the appellant sought the Tribunal to apply the same reasoning and allow the appeal based on the earlier decision.

The Tribunal, in its analysis, acknowledged the previous order where it was determined that commercial production had commenced before 31.03.2010, making the appellant eligible for the exemption under the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to follow the precedent set by the earlier decision and allowed the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order. This decision highlights the importance of consistency in judicial rulings and the application of precedents to ensure fairness and uniformity in legal outcomes. The judgment emphasizes the significance of past decisions in shaping current legal interpretations and outcomes, underscoring the principle of stare decisis in maintaining legal stability and predictability.