Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (8) TMI 1275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acities could be enhanced by the appellant so long as it remains within the licenced capacity decided by State Forest department in the light of Supreme Court s judgement dated 15.01.1998. There is also no requirement under Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 that licensed capacity fixed by State forest department has to be taken into consideration while allowing expansion and that appellant should in one go install all machinery required to cater to the licensed capacity sanctioned - benefit of notification allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal Nos. E/71291/2013 & CO/76801/14; E/76454-76474 & 76608-76611/2014 - Final Order No. FO/76797-76822/2017 - Dated:- 24-8-2017 - Satish Chandra, President And V. Padma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... brugarh vs Greenply Industries Ltd., Final Order No. 75829/2016 dated 12.08.2016] wherein the claim was allowed in their favour by observing that : 6. So far as point at para 5(i) above is concerned it is observed from last para on internal page-35 of the Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2011 that PCCF vide a letter dated 15.10.2009 has clarified that licensed capacity of the appellant for veneer production is 6625 CUM and plywood production is 26000 cum and that no permission from the forest department is required for enhancement of installed capacity if the enhancement is within the licensed capacity. In view of the clarification dated 15.10.2009 discussed by the Adjudicating authority it cannot be said that no expansion in the installe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ciated that quantity of veneer production should also be taken into consideration while determining the expansion undertaken. CBEC also while issuing a clarification under F.No.354/08/98-TRU dated 09.07.1999 opined that in case of doubt the Central Excise Officers may consult department of Industries of State Govt. for the purpose of 25% expansion in installed capacity, etc. It is also observed from clarification dated 07.10.2005 issued by CC, Meerut, with respect to similar area based exemption No.49/2003-CE and 50/2003-CE under F.No.V(30)CCO/MRT/T-1/498/03/6454-55 issued to Commissioners Meerut-I and II, that there is nothing in the exemption Notification that there should be increase in each and every section of the assessee. The said cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7.2 In the case of Farm Fresh Foods Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh(supra), relied upon by Respondent, CESTAT Delhi held that a Chartered Engineer Certificate cannot be brushed aside in a casual manner in the absence of any contrary opinion brought on record by the Revenue. It is also observed that the ratio laid by this Bench in the case of CCE, Shillong vs. Hatikuli Tea Estate [2008 (230) ELT 497 (Tri.-Kolkata)] is squarely applicable to the facts in hand. In this case law it was held as follows : 4. We, however, find that neither the Notification nor the Ministry s Circular cited above, refers to the capacity of the drawing section as the only crucial factor to determine the installed capacity. Even though the respondents had a higher .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be initiated on the same cause of action in the absence of any contrary evidence or expert opinion. As all the facts were within the knowledge of the department extended period can also not be invoked as per the arguments taken by the Respondent at paras H.1 to H.7 of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2011. 9. So far as points mentioned at para-5(iii) (iv) are concerned it has not been amplified by the department as to how these verifications could have helped in establishing that more than 25% expansion in installed capacity has not been done. At the same time these suspicions and a separate expert contrary opinion could have been raised by the department to review the order dated 07.06.2005 passed by the jurisdictional DC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates