9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T GIS were engaged in providing various types of IT solutions relating to geographical information systems and were operating as joint venture of ESRI Inc. USA and NIIT India. Since year 2000, they were operating from Parwanoo in the State of Himachal Pradesh which is covered by area based exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE dt.10.6.2003. The activity undertaken by the appellants M/s.NIIT GIS was to receive GIS data through satellite pictures of various landmass or through downloaded software, or hardcopy of photographs and convert input data into digitalized data by using software. Such digitalized data was further replicated by the appellant M/s. NIIT GIS on CDs for use by the end user. The digitalized content written on CDs was clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate for the appellants. Learned Counsel submitted that the provisions of the said Notification No.50/03-CE dt.10.6.2003 provided that if industrial unit which was existing prior to 7.1.2003 has undertaken substantial expansion by way of increasing installed capacity by not less than 25% then they were eligible for full exemption of Central Excise duty. He has submitted that though preamble of the notification grants exemption to the specified goods cleared from the industrial unit located in specified area eligibility criteria as stipulated in the said notification is not with reference to the expansion of installed capacity to the specified goods. Therefore, restricting examination of the expansion to specified goods is not expected in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one independent agency has certified that installed capacity was increased by more than 25% and jurisdictional Central Excise officers has recommended that the appellants were eligible to avail the benefit under Notification No.50/03-CE dt.10.6.2003. He has further submitted that during the period upto June, 2009, the demand was time barred. 4. Heard learned AR who supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made by both sides. We note that the contention of the Revenue for denial of benefit of said notification was that that the installed capacity in respect of specified goods did not increase substantially whereas the contention of the appellants is that there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
