9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Order-in-Review No. 118-R/2004 dated 19-7-2004 passed by the Board opining that the impugned Order is not legal and correct. 3. We find that the impugned Notification grants exemption from excise duty to - (a) new industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after the 24th day of December, 1997; and (b) industrial units existing before the 24th day of December, 1997 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty-five per cent on or after the 24th day of December, 1997. Admittedly, the respondents are outside the purview of (a) above, but they have claimed exemption under (b) above. To qualify for the same, they were required to undertake subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Report dated 12-4-01. (ii) The District Industries Centre and the Chief Inspector of Boilers & Factories, both of Meghalaya Government, have also confirmed that the substantial expansion has taken place after the notified date. (iii) The Department has raised doubts regarding earlier communications from the unit as well as from the Director of Industries that the expansion has taken place in April, 1997. However, these communications have been subsequently cancelled in September, 1997 well before the issue of the exemption Notification dated 8-7-99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manating from the respondents themselves clearly show that the substantial expansion had taken place much before the notified date. He states that the respondents have invested about Rs. 60.00 lakhs for the substantial expansion out of which Rs. 45.00 lakhs were invested in the year 1995-96; Rs. 10.00 lakhs in the year 1996 Rs.1.95 lakh in the year 1997-98; and only Rs.4.00 lakhs are said to have been invested in the year 1998-99. As such, most of the investments have taken place much before the notified date and the investment of Rs. 4.00 lakhs said to have been made after the notified date is also in doubt in view of the statement of Mr. Mustaq Ahmed that the claimed machinery was neither manufactured by his unit nor supplied. The payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out giving detailed findings on the various issues raised in the show cause notice. We also find that though requested by the Respondents, the Adjudicating Commissioner has not allowed cross-examination of Mr. Mustaq Ahmed whose statement is crucial to determine whether any machinery for completion of the substantial expansion took place after the notified date. The Adjudicating Commissioner has also not examined the Agreement for supply of machineries between the Respondents and M/s. Mirlight Fabricators, which we find to be undated. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents has fairly stated before us that the Respondent Company has sought benefits under the Income Tax Act for making investments towards the substantial expa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
