9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2014 respectively passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh. The period in dispute is May, 2010 to January 2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, the assessee-Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of plywood at Tizit, Nagaland. They were enjoying the area base exemption as per Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. The assessee-Appellants have undertaken 25% expansion which was denied by the adjudicating authority. In one of the cases the relief was granted to the assessee-Appellants and in others it was denied. Being aggrieved, the Revenue as well as the assessee-Appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri R. Raghavan, Sh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gement dated 15.01.1998. There is also no requirement under Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 that licensed capacity fixed by State forest department has to be taken into consideration while allowing expansion and that appellant should in one go install all machinery required to cater to the licensed capacity sanctioned. 7. On the argument raised at para-5(ii) above Adjudicating Authority further justified the expansion by not only based on a Chartered Engineer s Certificate dated 17.05.2005, but also relied upon a report of National Institute of Technology Agartala (A Central Government Institute). Certification given by two experts cannot be brushed aside without taking any other opinion of an expert as held by various judicial p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. CC, Bombay[2000 (115) ELT 42(SC)] it has been held by Apex Court that departmental authorities cannot take one view in one state and a different view in another state. 7.1 Similar view has been taken in the following case laws that in all cases additional machinery need not be added to increase installed capacity and even replacement of old machines with new machines without changing other parameters, may also lead to more than 25% expansion :- "(i) CCE vs. Bhandari Deepak Industries Pvt. Ltd., [2015 (318) ELT 677 (Tri.)] (ii) CCE vs. Sudarshan Pine Products, [2014 (305) ELT 158 (Tri.)] (iii) Rana Casting Ltd. vs. CCE, [2010 (257) ELT 104 (Tri.)] (iv) CCE & C vs. Rana Castings Ltd. [2015 (320 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondents is detailed and acceptable and the same also has not been challenged by the Department. Accordingly, even though the Order passed by the lower Appellate Authority is not detailed and has not examined the issues involved in the case, we find no reason to interfere with his Order allowing exemption to the respondents." 8. It is further observed that while examining and allowing expansion and admissibility of Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 DC CEx, Jorhat under order dated 07.06.2005, issued from C.No.18(167)ACJ/ Misc./Ref/2004/2222-25, camped at Tizit from 27.05.2005 to 28.05.2005. He saw the process of manufacture and also refers to Chartered Engineer s report. A copy of this order was sent to the jurisdictiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
