Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (12) TMI 1438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot the independent Units, they would be eligible for exemption under notification no. 49/03CE only for ten years from the date on which the Unit-I had commenced commercial production - if the Unit-I had commenced commercial production sometime in 2004 it would be eligible for exemption under this notification till 2014 only. The attempt to set up the Unit-II as a separate Unit on first floor of the Unit-I appears to be an attempt by the appellant company to enjoy the exemption in the name of Unit-II for another period of ten years. Since, we have held that Unit-II has no existence and Unit-I and Unit II have to be treated as one unit, the same would be eligible for exemption only for a period of ten years from the date on which the unit-I h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d authority on 26/2/2010. The Unit II was located on the first floor of the building on the ground floor of which, the Unit-I is located. The Unit-II was visited by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers on 25/8/2010 and thereafter, again on 23/11/2010. According to the report of the Visiting Officers - (a) while Unit-I has manufacturing process in a portion of first floor and the injection moulding thereon of Unit-I has also been installed on first floor, the Unit-II has also its manufacturing activity on the same floor, (b) there is no demarcation or boundary between Unit I and Unit - II;(c) there are two injections moulding machines put together on first floor- first machine is claimed to be of Unit-I and the second machine is claime .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d cleverly created evidence to show that they had complied with the condition of notification no. 49/03CE dated 10/6/2003. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 30/7/2012 dismissed the appeal. Commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order held that Unit II, which is claimed to be a new unit set up by the appellant company, did not exist and it was created only on paper. Against this order of the Commissioner (appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Shekhar Vyas, Advocate, ld. Counsel, for the appellant, pleaded that the copy of the verification reports dated 27/8/2010 and 23/11/2010 were not provided to the appellant; that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted at ground floor is operating since 2004. The old unit is also availing of exemption under notification no. 49/03CE. The Unit-II is claimed to have been set up in February/March, 2010 and according to the appellant, the single-window-clearance of this unit had been granted by the District Industries Centre on 17/2/2010. The permission of operating DG sets had been granted on 26/2/2010 and thereafter it had commenced commercial production on 29/3/2010. There is no dispute that this Unit-II had filed the necessary declaration for availing of exemption under notification no. 49/03CE on 31/3/2010. The department seeks to deny the exemption of Unit-II on the ground that Unit-II is not independent. In this regard, para 3 of the show cause noti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch the exemption under such notification cannot be granted t o the said unit. 7. Thus, the basis for denial of exemption notification no. 49/03-CE the Unit-II is that it has no independent existence of Unit-I or in other words, the Unit-II is alleged to be the part of the Unit-I and according to the department, Unit-II cannot be treated as a separate unit which had commenced commercial production on or before 31/3/2010 so as to be independently eligible for exemption under notification no. 49/03CE. The Assistant Commissioner has upheld the above allegation and it is this order of the Assistant Commissioner which has been upheld by the Commissioner (appeals) by the impugned order. 8. While according to the factual position mentioned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates