TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units. Needless to mention that the purpose of the area based exemption in the North East is to invest finance in the New Industrial Unit. That is why various tax exemption and facilities were provided to the investors for the period of 10 years - In the instant case, the total investment in the subsequent plant is of ₹ 34 lakhs as said above. Earlier parts and machineries were sold for ₹ 20 Lakhs. Thus the fresh investment is minimum for ₹ 14 lakhs only. So this is against the spirit of the notification. It is evident that appellant never started a new unit the appellant has used partly old machinery as stated above in the same premises/shed. Nature of the product is not meaningful to get the benefit of the notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.2006 observed that the appellant (M/s. ATC Agro) is not entitled for the benefit under Clause -3 (b) of the Notification No.32/99 dated 08.07.99 but the Tribunal has directed the Adjudicating Authority to examine whether they would be eligible under Clause-3(a) of the said notification which extends the benefit to new industrial units and decide the matter denovo. 4. In compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order where the benefit to the appellant has been denied. Being aggrieved, the appellant had again knocked the door of the Tribunal by filling this Appeal. 5. With the background, we heard both the parties and perused the bulky record, from which it appears that the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of fragrances and flavors. The appellant has expended ₹ 34 lakhs on their new unit. To support his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases:- 1) CCE, Shillong Vs. Jellalpore Tea Estate[2011 (268) E.L.T. 14 (Gau.)]; 2) Devidayal Electronics Wires Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Union of India and Another.[1984(16) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.)]; 3) Collr. Of Central Excise Vs. Reckitt Colman of India Ltd.[1997(92) E.L.T. 457 (S.C.)]; 4) Collector of Central Excise Vs. Himalayan Co-oP. Milk Product Union ltd. [2000(122) E.L.T. 327(S.C.)]; 5) Purolator India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [1996(85) E.L.T. 275(Tri.)]; 6) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 490(S.C.)]. Where it was observed that if the earlier existing unit has been closed and subsequently another unit started at the different location with new machinery and new work force then the unit can be considered as 'New Industrial Unit'. But in the instant case, the partly old machineries were used in the same premises/shed, so, it cannot be treated as 'New Industrial Unit'. Lastly, he justified the impugned order. 10. We heard both sides and gone through the bulky materials available on record, from which it appears that a part of the plant and machineries were removed by the HLL from the unit of M/s. ATC Ltd. which includes air curtain, bottle washer, roto pump, conveyors, cap sealing machines, screw capping ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturing Plant and machineries remained till the end. Similarly the Plant and Machineries manufacturing Vinegar having capacity of 5 MT remained with them till the end. During the month of October November, 2002 they installed the machineries which were capable to manufacturing food colour preparations and fragrance and flavor. In the case of Food Coloring preparations they have not used any part of existing Plant Machineries but however, in the case of Fragrance Flavour they have used 2 mixing tanks having capacity of 2.5 MT each whereas, they bought 3 mixing tanks (SS vessels) having capacity of 600 Kgs. Each along with three Mixing Tanks (SS vessels) of capacity of 100 Kgs. Each for manufacture of Fragrance Flavour. The Deputy Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cilities were provided to the investors for the period of 10 years. 14. In the instant case, the total investment in the subsequent plant is of ₹ 34 lakhs as said above. Earlier parts and machineries were sold for ₹ 20 Lakhs. Thus the fresh investment is minimum for ₹ 14 lakhs only. So this is against the spirit of the notification. The Tribunal vide its earlier order has clearly observed that the appellant is not eligible for keeping exemption under Clause 3(b) of the Notification No.32/99. The matter was remanded to examine only for a limited issue whether they would be eligible of the said notification which extends benefit to new industrial units. 15. From the above discussions, it is evident that appellant never ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
