2017 (7) TMI 1479 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of area based exemption under N/N. 50/2003-C.E. dated 10-6-2003 - exemption contested due to the omission of Khasra No. 130M constituting 0.90% of the total factory area from the notification - HELD THAT - It is not a disputed fact that all 8 khasras are adjacent where the unit was established. It is not necessary that every inch of the land will be utilized for installation of machines. There may be some area left free and open. Notification did not cover Khasra No. 130M which is only 0.0030 hectare. It means that this covered only 0.90 per cent of the total area of the factory plot which is negligible. When it is so then the benefit of area based exemption cannot be denied specially when plots are adjacent and not separated. In view of the above the impugned demand set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT New Delhi, presided over by Dr. Satish Chandra, J. (President) and V. Padmanabhan, Member (T), addressed appeals challenging the orders-in-Appeal Nos. 217/2012, 313/2013, and 307/2015. The appellant, operating a manufacturing unit for wire mesh and perforated screens under Chapter 73 in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, was initially benefiting from an "area based exemption" under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. This exemption was contested due to the omission of Khasra No. 130M, constituting 0.90% of the total factory area, from the notification. The authorities demanded Rs. 1,61,937/- along with penalty and interest, denying the exemption.The Tribunal noted that the unit was established on adjacent plots, and the unmentioned Khasra No. 130M was negligible, covering only 0.0030 hectares. The Tribunal held that "the benefit of area based exemption cannot be denied" due to the minor discrepancy, especially since the plots were contiguous. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned demand, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.