TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (Technical) Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. R. K. Mishra, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra: These appeals have been filed by the appellant against the order in original No. 17/COMMISSIONER /DDN/2017 dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Dehradun. The period of dispute is January 2015 to December, 2015. 2. In the present case, the issue is pertaining to the admissibility of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 to Unit-II wherein excisable goods have been manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. 3. Heard Ms. Sukriti Das, ld. Advocate for the assessee and Sh. R. K. Mishra, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... splayed a site plan clearly demarcating Unit-I Unit-II with a specific remark. Similarly, the original authority records that the term unit used in the said notification refers to the said factory . The original authority records that it does not matter for Central Excise purposes as to by which name whether by name of plant, unit or the like, each set is described. Since each unit cannot be described as a factory, he proceeded to hold that the whole premises should be considered as single entity and exemption was accordingly denied. While examining the decision of Bombay High Court in Devidayal Electronics and Wires Ltd, 1984(16) E.L.T. 30 (BOB.), the original authority erred in not examining the provisions of Notification No. 50/03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already existing factory having other manufacturing unit/facility. 9. The Tribunal while examining the application of exemption under the above said notification in the case of M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd, 2015 (324) ELT 201 (Tri.-Del.) relying on the decision of the Hon ble SC in Reckitt Columan of India Ltd., 1997 (92) ELT 457 (SC) held: in our view, this ground for denial of exemption to cylinder unit is totally incorrect, as held by Apex Court in the case of Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. (supra) each section or part of a factory manufacturing a different commodity has to be treated as separate manufacturing unit. The same view has been expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Himalayan Co-op. Milk Product (supra) and also Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that industrial unit would mean something other than factory, which would be a separate isolated part of plant which is exclusively used for manufacture of goods for which exemption is claimed. 2000 (120) ELT 327 (SC). 12. We also note that in various decisions, the Tribunal held that terms unit and factory cannot be accorded the same meaning for the purpose of Notification No.50/03. A notification grants exemption to new industrial units or existing industrial units undertaking substantial expansion. The exemption is not with reference to a factory. This is clear from the wordings of the notification. We also agree that the definition of factory under Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act is much wider and cannot be made appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
