9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the "actual date of production " is clearly a mistaken view and deserves to be struck down and the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1093 dated July 27, 1991. Revision allowed. - 363 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2009 - BHARATI SAPRU , J. Ms. BHARATI SAPRU J. Heard learned senior counsel Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey learned standing counsel for the Department. This revision has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal dated February 20, 2001 by which the Tribunal has rejected the case of the assessee for grant of an exemption under notification dated July 27, 1991 by which exemptions towards the tax were given to certain industries, whose date of production was falling between the dates with effect from April 1, 1990 up to March 31, 1995. The questions of law referred are as under: (1) Whether the applicant having established its unit in pursuance of Notification No. 1093 dated July 27, 1991 in which the unit manufacturing vanaspati was not in the prohibited list and the same was included for the first time in annexure II of Notification dated March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vanaspati. The State Government had issued Notification No. 1093 dated July 27, 1991 with a view to promote industrial growth in the State of U. P. for both units, which were being newly set up and also to units, which were undertaking expansion. The case of the assessee is that as the notification was extended to vanaspati manufacturing unit also, the assessee attracted by the promise under notification sought to set up a new manufacturing unit in Mathura. It purchased the land in the year 1993 and a licence was granted to it on February 9, 1993 for establishing the said unit. The assessee thereafter entered into an agreement on March 25, 1994 with another company for supply of the equipment, plant and machinery for the erecting new unit. The assessee has stated in the revision that on the basis of the promise and assurance of the State Government by way of notification dated July 27, 1991, the assessee made an investment of Rs. 10,14,000 for the purchase of the land and also completed its construction of building in the year 1994. The construction cost came to Rs. 72 lakhs. The other facts stated in the revision are that the assessee purchased til oil which were th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the meaning of date of staring production as given in the Explanation (3) to section 4A of the Act, which is quoted hereinbelow: (3) 'Date of starting production' means, the latter of the following dates, namely: (a) the date on which any raw material (which term includes accessories, components, parts and packing material) required for use in the manufacturing (whether on trial or commercial basis) or as the case may be, packing of the goods is purchased for the first time, or (b) where the manufacture of goods is not possible without power, the first date on which power supply for manufacturing (whether on trial or commercial basis) from whatever source is obtained by the unit: Provided that in respect of such raw material or packing material purchased on or after April 1, 1990 from outside India, the date of clearance by the customs authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 shall be reckoned as the date of its purchase for the purposes of clause (a): Provided further that where any stage of manufacture is commenced before any of the dates referred to above, the date of such commencement shall be the date of starting production. It was the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of this court in the case of Jagat Machinery Manufacturers Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [1987] UPTC 1358. He has argued that in view of the fact that it was fully established before the Tribunal as well as the Divisional Level Committee that (a) raw material was there before March 31, 1995; and (b) for the source of energy, these generators were installed before March 31, 1995. As such the assessee had become entitled to be granted relevant promises and reliefs under the notification dated July 27, 1991. The learned counsel for the assessee has also argued that because all the promises assured under the notification, the assessee had altered his position considerably and had expanded a considerable amount of money for the setting up of the new unit in U.P. also. As such he would be entitled to the benefit of the said notification. The learned Standing Counsel has however argued in support of the order of the Tribunal. He has argued firstly that the case of the promissory estoppel was not argued before the Tribunal. Secondly he has argued that it was not established that the raw material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
