9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals are rejected. - E/1031-1032 and 1472/2008 - A/1676-1678/2011-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 4-10-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Srova, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical and all three of them arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. As per facts on record, the appellant is a unit located in the area of Kutch. They are engaged in the manufacture of seamless stainless steel and carbon steel tubes/pipes. As the units located in the area of Kutch had been extended the benefit of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities while denied the benefit of the notification has rejected that part of the refund claim, which pertains to the duty paid on the goods manufactured by the plant and machinery installed after the cut-off date of 31-12-05. Accordingly, both the authorities have held that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of notification in respect of the said goods. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has reiterated the same very grounds, which were advanced before the lower authorities. Its stands submitted that the additional plant and machinery was installed after 31-12-05, for manufacture of the same very goods, which were being manufactured by the appellant prior to the cut-off date i.e. 31-12-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 27 (S.C.) and in the case of Sarabhai M. Chemicals v. CCE, Vadodara reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Accordingly, he submits that the notification, in question, prescribes an unambiguous condition that the plant and machinery must be completely installed by 31-12-05 and commercial production must start by that date in order to avail the exemption. Allowing exemption in respect of goods manufactured by using plant and machinery installed after the cut-off date of 31-12-05 would amount to expanding the scope of the notification, which is not the intention of the legislation. He also draws our attention to the various circulars issued by the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said area for manufacture of the goods. If the machines, instead of being installed in the same factory, would have been installed in a separate factory, the benefit of the notification was admittedly not available to the appellant. As such, merely because the second tube mill stand installed in the same factory, which was earlier enjoying the exemption, would not result in grant of exemption to the second tube mill. 8. Even if viewed from the conditions of the notifications, it is clearly mentioned that the benefit of notification would be available in respect of those units which have been fully complete prior to 31-12-05 and has started their production prior to the said date. There is nothing in the said notification as regards ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to a unit would also keep changing. 10. Reference may be made to Circular No. 110/11/2006/CX.3, dated 10-7-08. The relevant part of said circular clarifying the issue is as under :- Point No. 1 : Whether the benefit of exemption would be available to goods/products that the units starts manufacturing after the cut off date for the commencement of commercial production i.e. 31-12-2005. Comments : There would be two situations. First is that where a unit introduces a new product by installing fresh plant, machinery or capital goods after the cut off date in such a situation, exemption would not be available to this new product. The said new product would be cleared on payment of duty, as applicable, and separate records would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es commercial production after 31-12-05. In as much as the appellant had admittedly installed a new second tube mill after 31-12-05, though in the same factory, which was earlier enjoying the exemption, we are of view that the benefit of the notification would not be available to the appellant in as much as the object of the notification was to invite investors for promotion of the Kutch area and to complete such investments before 31-12-05. Allowing of exemption in respect of subsequent instalments of plant and machinery would defeat the very purpose of issuance of the notification and the legislative intent. 12. In view of the above, the appeals are rejected. (Order pronounced in the open court on 4-10-2011) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
