9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) has rightly rejected their appeal. The Appellant has filed a refund in terms of Notification 32/99-CE dated 8/7/99, which was sanctioned as claimed by them. Hence, for all intents and purposes, it is clearly evident and beyond doubt that they have sought the benefit of the said Notification alone from the Lower Authority and not the benefit of any other Notification, including the said later Notification 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007. Accordingly, the Appellant has not claimed the benefit of the Notification 20/2007-CE from the lower authority and hence, they are not eligible to avail the benefit of this notification. Whether the Appellant has started a new industrial unit and commenced its commercial production on 11.04.2007? - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has been availing the benefit of the exemption notification 32/99-CE and claiming refund as envisaged in the said notification, w.e.f. 08.11.2002 . The benefit of this notification is valid for a period of 10 years. Thus, even after change of management and product line in the unit, they continued to avail the benefit of the same notification from the earlier date of commencement of commercial production ie, w.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial area. They were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, viz. Seat/Plastic Moulded Furniture/Tableware/Kitchenware/Toilet Articles of Plastics and cow-back Chair with Arms, etc. claiming refund of the excise duty paid in cash, in respect of their final products, in terms of the Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.99, as amended. They have filed a claim for refund of the duty paid through PLA amounting to Rs.25,567/- during the month of September, 2009, after debiting Rs 6,30,160/- from Cenvat credit account, as envisaged in the said Notification. The Lower Authority has sanctioned refund of Rs.25,567/-. 2. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) urging to declare the date of commencement of commercial production of the Unit to be 11.04. 2007 instead of 08.11.02, as mentioned in the impugned Order. They contended that the lower authority has committed an error in interpreting the conditions of Notification No. 20/07-CE dated 25.04.07. The Contention of the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that their unit is a New Industrial Unit in terms of Notification 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 and commenced commercial p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 25.04.2007. (ii) The name of the company, location of the factory as well as its PAN Code all remained the same. But, there was a change in the ownership and control of the factory. After change of ownership, the factory started manufacturing a new item. Proper verification was made before ascertaining the eligibility of the Appellant for the said Notification. On scrutiny of records, it was found that the management of the factory as well as description of the products manufactured were changed during 2006 and 2007, for which they obtained a fresh Central Excise Registration. The unit had been availing exemption in terms of Notification 32/99-CE, w.e.f. 08.11.02 and they have not been rendered ineligible for exemption after 11.04.07. As such, they are entitled to claim the benefit of the new Notification 20/2007 dated 25.04.2007, with effect from the date of commencement of commercial production of the new product, on 11.04.2207. Accordingly, they prayed for allowing the benefit of Notification 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007, by treating it as a new unit which commenced commercial production on 11.04.2007. 5. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il the benefit of this notification. Hence, answer to the question (i) in para 7 supra is negative. 11. Regarding the claim of the Appellant that they have set up a new industrial unit, w.e.f. 11.04.2007, we observe that the Appellant has been availing the benefit of the exemption notification 32/99-CE and claiming refund as envisaged in the said notification, w.e.f. 08.11.2002 . The benefit of this notification is valid for a period of 10 years. Thus, even after change of management and product line in the unit, they continued to avail the benefit of the same notification from the earlier date of commencement of commercial production ie, w.e.f. 08.11.2002. Just because there is a change in the management and product line within the same factory, it cannot be called a new unit which commenced its production w.e.f. 11.04.2007. The benefit of the exemption under notification 32/99-CE was given to a new unit or an existing unit which has undertaken 25% installed capacity on or after 24.12.1997. The new notification 20/2007 also has similar clauses to be fulfilled for considering a unit set up in the specified area as a new industrial unit under this notification. The relevant paras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
