9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date. Coming to the declaration dated 25.11.2006, it is found that District Industry Centre vide Certificate dated 23rd November 2006 has certified the substantial expansion and increased production capacity. Therefore, even assuming that the declaration dated 25.11.2006 was not given by the appellants, substantial compliance of the conditions of the Notification and therefore has rendered themselves eligible for the exemption Notification. Learned Commissioner though acknowledges the fact of their eligibility denies the same on the basis of a letter dated 11.12.2007, purported to have been written by the appellants to the effect that they are availing SSI exemption and are not availing the said Notification - In the instant case, the appellants claim that they have filed declaration dated 25.11.2006 though they could not produce the acknowledgement for the same. This is a mere procedural violation which should not come in the way of allowing the benefit of the exemption Notification. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the appellants are eligible for the exemption Notification from 25.11.2006. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunately, the acknowledgement for the same is not available with the appellants; substantial condition has been complied with and thus, area-based exemption should not be denied. He submits that appellants commenced their business in 2000-01; from the copy of the ledger for the year 2001-02, it can be seen that the appellants had purchased a machine worth Rs.5,04,400/- and the same is certified by the Chartered Accountant vide Certificate dated 25.03.2002; the appellants have included the activity of manufacture of corrugated boxes in the Registration Certificate on 08.01.2003; the appellants further purchased machinery required for colour printing and Directorate of Industries, Himachal Pradesh have given endorsement to that effect; the appellants had carried out substantial expansion of more that 25% as mandated by the Notification and the appellants filed a declaration dated 12.02.2003; the appellants were manufacturing specified goods and were located in specified area and therefore, benefit of Notification No.49-50/2003 cannot be denied; he also submits that there was no condition initially that the appellants should inform the Central Excise authorities in order to claim th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or destroyed by the appellant s employee and appellant have initiated action against such employee; declarations filed with the Department of Industries indicates substantial expansion; the Department is totally aware of the activities of the appellants as officers were visiting their unit and their sister concern viz. M. J. Industries; the appellant s unit was subjected to audit and the audit did not indicate any undue availment by the appellant. Therefore, not only the benefit should be extended because there was no suppression of facts etc. by the appellants, extended period also cannot be invoked. He relies on the following cases: CCE, Vishakapatnam vs. Gautami Textile Indus Sales Coprn 2006 (197) ELT 87 (Tri. - Bang) Metroark Ltd. vs. Commissioner of central Excise, Kolkata-1 2003 (160) ELT 537 (Tri. Kolkata) Sap Bagging Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhubneswar 2000 (123) ELT 669 (Tribunal) OCP India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, BBSR-II 2004 (177) ELT 461 (TH. Kolkata) Chemphar Drugs and Liniments 40 ELT 276 (SC) Lubri Chem Industries 73 ELT 257 (SC) 6. Shri Narinder Singh, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, reiterates the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority has erred in allowing the exemption with effect from 12.11.2008 on the grounds that the appellants themselves, vide their letter dated 11.12.2007, informed that they are SSI unit and were not availing the benefit of Notification No. 49-50/2003-CE dated 10.6.2003; the Notification is dated 10.6.2003 and the appellants would like to avail exemption because of the declaration dated 07.1.2003; exemption under the said Notification is available only on substantial expansion of their plant and machinery by more than 25% after 10.06.2003; the appellants have not filed any declaration/intimation as new unit with the Department for availing exemption under the said exemption Notification to the proper authority. 9. Learned Counsel submits in rebuttal that the Department s contention based on the expansion in 2003 is not permissible as the issue was not raised in the appeal filed by the Department; the Department did not file any appeal on the finding of the Commissioner that: Had the letter dated 2.02.2003 and 25.11.2006 been received in the office of the Superintendent Central Excise Range-11 Baddi or Office of the Central Excise Division Shimla on the respective dates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that the claim of the appellants that they have undertaken substantial expansion w.e.f. 08.01.2003 is not corroborated with the documents on record. We find that as per Para 2 of the Notification No.49-50/2003, exemption contained in the Notification shall apply only to the following kind of units namely: a) new industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after the 7th day of January, 2003; b) industrial units existing before the 7th day of January, 2003, but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty-five per cent, on or after the 7th day of January, 2003. 12. We find from the records that the appellant has started production on 30.03.2002 as can be seen from the application for approval of revised capacity after undertaking substantial expansion. Therefore, we find that the contention of the Department that the increased capacity of production was effective from 30.03.2002 whereas the Notification required substantial expansion of capacity on or after 7th day of January, 2003. In view of the same, we find that the circumstantial evidence does not indicate that the appellants have com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
