9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 on the ground that expansion carried out by way of increased installed capacity of 25% was not subsequent to 7th January, 2003 and expansion programme had started prior to 7th January, 2003. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants taking us through the impugned order as well as materials placed before the adjudicating authority, submitted that the Commissioner failed to take note of the variation in the production capacity year wise and to ascertain as to whether the expansion had resulted in increase in production capacity after 7th January, 2003 or not. Referring to certain observations in the impugned order, learned Counsel also submitted that the adjudicating authority analysed the materials on record with pre-conceived mind and the same is apparent from finding on the every issue recorded in the impugned order right from the beginning of the order itself. Even in the narration of the facts, the adjudicating authority has clearly arrived at the finding solely on the basis of what was stated by the department. He further submitted that the finding regarding commencement of expansion programme has been arrived at ignoring the materials placed on record in the form of cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the letter dated 30-7-2002 by the CMD of the appellants to the U.P. Financial Corporation while contending that the same discloses the appellants had already invested Rs. 200 lakhs prior to July, 2002 for expansion programme for the project and for completion of the project, they required further loan of Rs. 300 lakhs. He further submitted that the date of completion of the expansion programme is not at all material and what is material is the date on which expansion programme had commenced for the purpose of availment of benefit of the said notification. Unless it is shown that expansion programme had commenced on or after 7th January, 2003, the assessee cannot avail the benefit of the said notification. Further attention was also drawn to the letter dated 16-12-2004 by Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd. whereby they had informed that they had not supplied the paper machines as they did not manufacture any type of paper machines. The appellants had contended that they had procured machines for expansion from Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd. As far as the products which were procured by the appellants and the documents produced in that regard in relation to the expansion programme, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the grievance sought to be made on behalf of the appellants, prima facie, we do not find much substance in their grievance. 8. The Commissioner has not only referred to the balance sheet for the year 2002-03, but has also taken into consideration other materials which were placed on records. As rightly pointed out on behalf of the department, the letter dated 30-7-2002 was written by none other than the CMD of the appellants himself, addressed to the U.P. Financial Corporation from whom the financial assistance for expansion programme was availed as the same clearly reads thus : "In order to meet the global competition, the company have proposed a modernization project to improve the quality of its production and to reduce the cost of production with the installation of various balancing/quality control equipments. The total project cost estimated is Rs. 500 lacs. Out of this the company have already invested Rs. 200 lacs. To complete the project the company require a term loan of Rs. 300 lacs. With this project, the company will be able to improve its production capacity by appx. 25% and at the same time the cost of operation will also reduce. The company is confident to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tual production respectively. 11. Taking into consideration the above documents, it is apparent that in July, 2002, the appellants themselves had informed U.P. Financial Corporation that they had undertaken the project to improve the production capacity by approximately 25% and the same was in operation within 12 months and it could show the results. Further, on 18-1-2003, they had reported that modernization project was still in progress. They had nowhere stated that modernization had started on or after January, 2003, rather it was continuous process which had commenced prior to July, 2002. 12. It is also apparent from the actual production disclosed in the chart and the percentage of the production for the year 2000-01, it was 83% whereas in 2001-02 it was 108% and further for the year 2002-03 it was 118%. We have no assistance to know increased production month-wise. Obviously it was for the appellants to disclose that if they were interested to claim the benefit for which they had to satisfy that they had complied with the requirements of the conditions prescribed under the notification. The department is further justified in referring documents in the nature of le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
