New industrial unit exemption upheld where separate premises, records, licences and production supported independent existence

An industrial unit was treated as a new unit for exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the record showed separate land, distinct registrations and licences, independent production and account records, different directors, and manufacture of different ice-cream varieties with separate code numbers. The evidence supported separate existence rather than a mere addition or extension of an existing unit, and the exclusion for an existing unit or its expansion did not apply. The finding that the unit existed only on paper was unsupported. The Tribunal, as final fact-finder, was justified in accepting the evidence of independent identity and in granting the eligibility certificate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the industrial unit set up by the assessee was a "new unit" entitled to exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, or whether it was only an addition to or extension of the existing unit so as to be excluded from the benefit.

Analysis: The unit was established on a separate plot, had separate registration and licences, maintained separate production and account records, and was treated by the statutory authorities as a separate juristic entity. The material on record showed that the two units were not in the same , that their directors were different, and that they manufactured different varieties of ice-cream with different code numbers. The finding that the assessee existed only on paper was unsupported, and the exclusion clause for an existing unit or its extension was not attracted. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, was justified in preferring the evidence supporting separate existence and in holding that the assessee's unit did not fall within the disqualifying category under section 4A.

Conclusion: The assessee's unit was a new unit entitled to the eligibility certificate, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---