TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with supplies made to the Railways - it is plain that the Assessee claimed exemption on the strength of an earlier DIC certificate which did not authorise production beyond 2,70,187 cft. There is no power in the DIC to issue a certificate granting exemption retrospectively from an earlier date. Therefore, the certificate dated 2nd September, 1997 could not have possibly been used for calming exemption from payment of sales tax on the excess production year in the year in question i.e. 1994- 95. The Court is not satisfied that the concurrent findings of the STO, the ACST and the Tribunal on this aspect suffer from any legal infirmity that warrants interference. The question framed by this Court is answered in the affirmative i.e. in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckground facts are that the Petitioner is carrying on business of a crushing unit at Boinda in Angul district. The Petitioner is a new small-scale industrial (SSI) unit having obtained a certificate to that effect from the District Industries Centre (DIC), Angul in terms of the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989 (IPR 1989) issued by the General Manager, DIC on 3rd January, 1992. The manufacturing process was authorised to be carried on in stone chips and metal quantified by the annual installed capacity of 2,88,000 cft valued at Rs.15,12,000/-. The commercial production began on 1st October, 1991. Exemption from payment of sales tax was to be availed for a period of 7 years from that date i.e. up to 1st October, 1998. This was notified on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6th August, 1990 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha but the said notification did not authorise the General Manager, DIC to issue the certificate enhancing the production capacity for the period retrospectively. The transactions had been made during 1994- 95 whereas the certificate was issued on 2nd September, 1997. 7. The Assessee then went in appeal before the Tribunal which by the impugned order affirmed the aforementioned order of the ACST. 8. This Court has heard submissions of Mr. B. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party. 9. It was sought to be urged by Mr. Panda that as long as the DIC Certificate approved the enhancement of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
