TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring by the authority concerned and the claim made by it, was rejected. It is a case in which the claim regarding exemption was made by the petitioner with reference to notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010, while it was already enjoying benefits as are available in terms of the notification No. 56 of 2002 dated 14.11.2002. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner was not accepted by the competent authority, in terms of the prayer of the petitioner, but without even issuing a show cause notice to it. In case, the competent authority was satisfied with the claim made by the petitioner, a notice may not be required to be issued. But if the authority was of the opinion that the claim made by the petitioner may not be tenable, a notice is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefits mentioned therein. The benefits granted under both the notification were overlapping. The notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010, was also applicable to the units who had undertaken substantial expansion by way of increased installed capacity by not less than 25% or above. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the details of the additional investment made by the petitioner from time to time, after issuance of notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010, has been given in the petition. On the basis thereof, it has been pleaded that the criteria of minimum 25% additional investment was fulfilled by the petitioner in the year 2013, adding investment made from year to year. It was on the basis thereof that the petitioner vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the authority concerned. He further submitted that it is a case in which, vide impugned order, the petitioner had been granted much more than it actually deserved. The scheme of the notification is not that the investments made by a unit, peace-meal is to be taken for the purpose of expansion of capacity to the extent of 25% or more. Investment had to be in one go. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by the authority concerned is appealable, hence, the petitioner may avail of its statutory remedy of appeal. He further submitted that the scheme of the Act does not envisage a show cause notice in these proceedings. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
