Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE continued to be available to a unit that was purchased and shifted to another notified area, and whether the matter required verification of whether the same plant and machinery had been relocated.
Analysis: The circular issued by the Board clarified that exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE is not to be denied merely because the unit is shifted to another notified area or because ownership changes. The availability of the benefit in such cases depends on a factual verification, on a case-to-case basis, that the same plant, machinery, equipment and manpower have been relocated. The Chartered Engineer's certificate relied upon by the appellant had not been considered by the authorities below, and the factual aspect of physical shifting of the unit required examination.
Conclusion: The appellant's claim could not be finally denied without verification of the factual materials, and the impugned order was set aside with a remand for de novo adjudication.
Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the Original Authority for fresh consideration after examining the evidence regarding shifting of the unit and relocation of machinery.
Ratio Decidendi: Exemption linked to a notified area cannot be denied on mere shifting or change of ownership if the same unit is shown to have been relocated to another notified area, subject to factual verification of the identity of the unit and machinery.