9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T.R. Rastogi, Advocate for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Devender Singh The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s Dharampal Premchand Ltd., Dhamowal, Distt. Solan are engaged in the manufacture of Chewing Tobacco, Rose Water, Flavoured Elaichi, Scented Supari and Pan Chatni falling under heading No.24.04, 33.03, 20.01, 21.07 and 21.08 of Central Excise Tariff. They submitted a letter on 10.04.2004 with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner informing that they will manufacture Flavoured Elaichi (heading No.2001.10) and Pan Chatni (heading 2108.00) under Notification No.49/2003-CE dt. 10.06.2003 against office memorandum of Ministry of Commerce and In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee had wrongly availed the exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE in respect of Pan Chatni and Scented Elaichi and also wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE for these two items and wrongly availed the Notification No. 50/2003-CE in respect of Scented Supari on the ground of substantial expansion and contravened the provisions of Para 1 of the abovementioned notifications, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. The same was adjudicated resulting in confirmation of demand of ₹ 28,50,527/- along with interest and the equivalent amount of penalty and denial of exemption under Notification No.49/2003-CE and Notification No.50/2003-CE. The assessee went in appeal where the Ld. Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that the term industrial unit is not defined in the notification and the same has been interpreted by the Tribunal in the following case laws. In this regard, he relied upon the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Meerut-I - 2015 (324) 201 (Tri. Del.) and CCE, Meerut-II Vs Prakash Straw Board Pvt. Ltd - 2016 (332) ELT 741 (Tri. Del.). 6. Heard the parties and perused the records. 7. We find that the Revenue s main ground of appeal is that the entire operation was being undertaken in one complex or factory for which central excise registration had been taken by the party and clearances of individual excisable products cannot be take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her. He also correctly followed the decision of CCE Vs. Himalayan Cooperative Milk Product Union Ltd. - 2000(8) SC 642 wherein it was held that the Industrial Unit is a separate isolated part of the plant which is exclusively used for the manufacture of goods for which exemption is claimed. 10. In the specific context of area based exemption, similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I - 2015 (324) ELT 201 (Tri. Del.) wherein there was an LPG cylinder unit, which started production in 2001 and later in the same compound another unit for ACSR conductors was set up and had trial production in October, 2002 to December, 2002. While deciding the issue of date of onset of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to 7-1-2003 had commenced its commercial production prior to 7-1-2003, it would be out of the purview of the notification. For this purpose, distinction has to be made between Commercial Production and Trial Production . Though the term commercial production is not defined in this notification, it should be construed in contradistinction with the term Trial Production . Trial Production is followed by commercial production. Trial Production is the production during the process of commissioning of a plant. The process of commissioning of a manufacturing plant starts after completion of erection installation. During commissioning, the various machinery is run on trial/test basis and if the production is not of the desired quantity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to Pan Chatni and Scented Elaichi. 11. As for the expansion of the unit manufacturing Scented Supari, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the above mentioned Hon ble Apex Court decision while allowing the benefit of substantial expansion. We also find that the ratio laid down in the Para 9 of the Tribunal order, in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd., reproduced below is squarely applicable in this case:- 9. As regards, the cylinder unit, this unit had started production sometime in 2001 and this unit undertook expansion of installed capacity only in December, 2003 which was completed on Jan. 2004, as result of which, installed capacity fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
