9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nda, Member (J) Shri K.P. Singh, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides at length. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Jurisdictional Commissioner granting benefit of the Notification No. 33/99 dated 8-7-99 to the Respondents. The Appeal has been filed by the Revenue pursuant to the Order-in-Review No. 118-R/2004 dated 19-7-2004 passed by the Board opining that the impugned Order is not legal and correct. 3. We find that the impugned Notification grants exemption from excise duty to - (a) new industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of records and any other relevant information. It further clarified that in case of any doubt, the Commissioner may consult the Department of Industries of the State Government for this purpose. In this case, a doubt had arisen to that effect, and the Director of Industries, State Government of Meghalaya, was consulted and was asked for his Report. The matter has been decided in favour of the Respondents by the Adjudicating Commissioner on the basis of his Report dated 12-4-01. (ii) The District Industries Centre and the Chief Inspector of Boilers Factories, both of Meghalaya Government, have also confirmed that the substantial expansion has taken place after the notified date. (iii) The Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certification by several Government Agencies, the Adjudicating Commissioner has rightly granted them the exemption due to them and the impugned Order is therefore legal and correct and it requires no interference. 5. Shri K.P. Singh, learned S.D.R. appearing for the Department points out that the communications emanating from the respondents themselves clearly show that the substantial expansion had taken place much before the notified date. He states that the respondents have invested about Rs. 60.00 lakhs for the substantial expansion out of which Rs. 45.00 lakhs were invested in the year 1995-96; Rs. 10.00 lakhs in the year 1996 Rs.1.95 lakh in the year 1997-98; and only Rs.4.00 lakhs are said to have been invested in the year 1998- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all eligible for the claimed exemption. 6. After considering the arguments from both sides and perusal of the various documents produced by both sides, we find that the learned S.D.R. has raised some pertinent questions regarding the manner in which exemption has been granted by the Adjudicating Commissioner without giving detailed findings on the various issues raised in the show cause notice. We also find that though requested by the Respondents, the Adjudicating Commissioner has not allowed cross-examination of Mr. Mustaq Ahmed whose statement is crucial to determine whether any machinery for completion of the substantial expansion took place after the notified date. The Adjudicating Commissioner has also not examined the Agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he concerned State Government specifying that the matter should be examined by a person who has no interest in the Respondent Company. The Adjudicating Commissioner should also look into the collateral claims for investments made by the Respondent Company under the Income Tax Act and consider all aspects of the case before coming to a conclusion regarding the date of substantial expansion achieved by the Respondents in the context of the impugned Notification. It goes without saying that he shall afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the Respondents including cross-examination of Mr. Mustaq Ahmed asked for by the Respondents before passing a fresh Order. 8. We set aside the impugned Order and allow the Department's Appeal by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
