9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. K. Saraf, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Kousik Roy, Advocate. JUDGMENT AND ORDER(Oral) (Akil Kureshi, CJ) This appeal is filed by the department to challenge the judgment of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT for short) dated 20.11.2019. Following substantial question of law is framed for our consideration: "Whether the Tribunal was right i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l unit should have commenced commercial production on or after 24.12.1997 but not later than 28.02.2001. [3] The assessee acquired two more sheds in the same industrial estate, Sheds No.15 and 36D after the said date of 28.02.2001 and after completing necessary formalities with the Central Excise Department started manufacturing activity of the same product at the said sheds sometime thereafter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing unit are satisfied in the present case. Ignoring such pleas of the assessee, the Assessing Officer had passed the order in original. [4] Aggrieved by the order in original, the assessee approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and deleted the demands. It was observed that undisputedly there was common registration for the industrial sheds granted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghted. It is pointed out that there was inter linking of the manufacturing process, raw materials were commonly procured for all the sheds, there was common work force maintained by the assessee for all sheds, there was common sales tax registration and common income tax assessments for all industrial sheds. [7] In the present case, the department is not in a position to dispute the factual asser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter 28.02.2001. It is not the case of the department that even if there is any expansion in the existing industrial unit after 28.02.2001, the production achieved through such augmented manufacturing capacity would not qualify for exemption under the said notification dated 25.08.2003. [9] In the result, the question is answered in favour of the assessee against the Department. Appeal is dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
