TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, following the precedent decision in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - I (supra) we hold that the respondent are entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 as their factory has been located in the notified area. With these terms, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 687 of 2007 with CO No. 152 of 2007 - Final Order No. 53500/2015 - Dated:- 18-11-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Garg, Authorized Representative (DR) For the Respondent : Shri Amit Jain, Advocate ORDER Per. Ashok Jindal :- Revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situated in UPSIDC, Selaqui Industrial Region, Selaqui and the same is covered in revenue village Central Hope Town. A certificate dated 24/11/2003 of Survey Naib Tehsildar regarding location of Khasra No. 262 and Plot No. C-3/1 of the unit and copy of Lease Rent Agreement dated 17/09/2003. Thereafter verifying certain records the Adjudicating Authority allowed the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE ibid on the clarification that the Khasra No. 262 of the unit is covered at Sl. No. 11 of Annexure II appended to the Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 in Selaqui Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun. The said order was challenged by the Revenue before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who after examining the issue hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), CCE, Hyderabad vs. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 381 (Tri. - Bang.), CC CE, Hyderabad IV vs. Gland Pharma Ltd. reported in 2012 (280) E.L.T. 270 (Tri. - Bang.), CCE, Indore (M.P.) vs. Ambika Refinery reported in 2014 (299) E.L.T. 384 (Tri. - Del.). 5. On merits he submits that the case is squarely covered by the decision of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - I reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 201 (Tri. - Del.), wherein on the identical issue this Tribunal has hold that the Notification No. 27/2005-CE ibid is clarificatory in nature and, therefore, the respondent is entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE ibid. Therefore, impugned order is to be upheld. 6. Considered the submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. of the appellant unit got covered under the Notification No. 50/2003-CE and during period prior to 19/5/2005 the appellant unit would not be eligible for this exemption. 7.1 We do not agree with the contention of the Department. The notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/6/203 exempts from duty, the goods other than those mentioned in Annexure I of the notification, which has been cleared from a unit located in the Industrial Growth Centres or Industrial Infrastructure Development Centres or Export Promotion Industrial Park, or Industrial Estates or Industrial areas or Commercial Estates or Scheme Areas as the case may be specified in Annexure II and Annexure III appended thereto. The Industrial areas, Industrial estates etc. are sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls was changed, is in our view, only a clarificatory amendment. Though, by the amending notification dated 19/5/2005, some minor changes were made, the Khasra No. 235 to 243 still remain covered under this Industrial Area. For the purpose of this exemption notification, what is relevant is as to whether the manufacturing unit is located in the Industrial area/estate mentioned in Annexure II and III and the khasra no. of the plot of land on which the unit is located is mentioned against that Industrial area. Just because the village in which the Industrial area falls was wrongly mentioned and the village name is corrected by amending notification, it does not mean that before the amendment, the unit was not located in the notified Industria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|