2016 (1) TMI 883 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds factory's exemption under Central Excise Notification

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the respondent's entitlement to exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 50/2003-CE. The ... Area based exemption availed under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 - effect of correction in the name of village / area in the notification - Held that:- Observation made by the Tribunal in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - I (2015 (10) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ) wherein in the identical situation this Tribunal hold that -just because the village in which Industrial area falls was wrongly mentioned and village name is corrected by amending notification, which does not mean that before the amendment, the unit was located in the notified Industrial area and was not eligible for exemption. Therefore, following the precedent decision in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - I (supra) we hold that the respondent are entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 as their factory has been located in the notified area. With these terms, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved:- Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 for area based exemption.- Validity of authorization for filing appeal by Revenue.- Whether the factory location qualifies for exemption under the notification.Analysis:Interpretation of Central Excise Notification:The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of the respondent for area-based exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing various products, claimed exemption based on the location of their factory. The Revenue contended that the factory's location did not fall within the specified area for exemption as per the notification. However, the respondent argued that the amendment to the notification was clarificatory and that they were eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in a similar case and held that the factory's location was within the notified industrial area, making the respondent eligible for the exemption.Validity of Authorization for Appeal:The Revenue raised a procedural issue regarding the authorization for filing the appeal. They argued that the appeal was not maintainable as proper authorization was not obtained from the Committee of Commissioners as required. The respondent cited previous Tribunal decisions to support their contention. The Tribunal found merit in the objection raised by the respondent, stating that the appeal authorization by only one Commissioner was not valid. This procedural flaw was considered significant in determining the maintainability of the appeal.Factory Location Qualification for Exemption:The core issue revolved around whether the factory's location met the criteria for exemption under the notification. The Revenue argued that the factory's location did not qualify for exemption based on the village specified in the notification. However, the Tribunal, relying on the interpretation of the notification and previous decisions, concluded that the factory was indeed situated in the notified industrial area, making the respondent eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the correction in the village name through an amendment was clarificatory and did not affect the factory's eligibility for exemption.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the respondent's entitlement to the benefit of exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of accordingly. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper authorization for appeals and provided a detailed analysis of the interpretation of the notification to determine the eligibility for area-based exemption.