Area-based exemption turns on substantial expansion of the unit as a whole, and undisclosed material cannot sustain a demand.

For area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE, the relevant test is whether the industrial unit as a whole achieved substantial expansion by at least 25% in installed capacity; separate expansion of each product line is not required. On that basis, the exemption was held available for all goods cleared from the unit, including intermediate products integrated with final manufacture. The demand was also found unsustainable because it was worked out on undisclosed investigative reports and without a clear basis for quantification, breaching natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee was held entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE was available for all products cleared from the industrial unit, including intermediate products, when substantial expansion of the unit as a whole had been established. (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained when the impugned order was based on undisclosed investigative reports and lacked a clear basis for quantification.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE was available for all products cleared from the industrial unit, including intermediate products, when substantial expansion of the unit as a whole had been established.

Analysis: The notification extends exemption to industrial units that had undertaken substantial expansion by increasing installed capacity by not less than twenty-five per cent. The deciding factor is the expansion of the unit, not a separate expansion of each product line or section. The intermediate products were found to be integrated with the manufacture of the final products, and the evidence showed that the unit had satisfied the substantial expansion condition for the factory as a whole. The reasoning adopted in earlier decisions was followed, and the view that each product must independently undergo expansion was rejected.

Conclusion: The exemption was held available to the assessee for all products cleared from the unit, including the intermediate products.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained when the impugned order was based on undisclosed investigative reports and lacked a clear basis for quantification.

Analysis: The impugned demand was found to have been worked out on the basis of reports that were not furnished to the assessee. The order also did not disclose a clear method for arriving at the confirmed demand. This was held to violate the principles of natural justice and to render the demand unsustainable on its own terms.

Conclusion: The demand was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the assessee held entitled to the area based exemption for the goods cleared from the unit.

Ratio Decidendi: For area based exemption tied to substantial expansion, the relevant inquiry is whether the industrial unit as a whole has achieved the required expansion in installed capacity, not whether every individual product or section has separately expanded; an order founded on undisclosed material and unexplained quantification cannot stand.

---