Appeals allowed, impugned orders set aside under Finance Act. Eligibility issues redundant. Consequential relief granted.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders. It concluded that the proceedings were not maintainable under Section 72(6) of the Finance Act, 2011, and that the eligibility issues raised in the show cause notice had become redundant. Consequently, the appellants were granted consequential relief. The order was pronounced on 20 November 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.32/99 and subsequent Notifications No.69/2003-CE and 8/2004-CE.
2. Whether Shed No.15 and 36D, and Shed No.17 should be considered as independent units or extensions of existing units.
3. Bar of limitation and suppression of facts.
4. Validity of demand beyond the scope of the show cause notice.
5. Retrospective application of registration and exemption benefits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Exemption:
The primary issue revolves around the appellant's eligibility for exemption under Notification No.32/99, which was rescinded and replaced by Notification No.8/04-CE. The appellant claimed that their sheds, Shed No.15 and 36D, were part of their factory that commenced production prior to 28.02.2001, thus entitling them to the benefits of the notification. The department, however, argued that these sheds began production after the cut-off date and were not eligible for the exemption.

2. Independent Units vs. Extensions:
The dispute extends to whether Shed No.17 and Shed No.15 and 36D should be considered independent units or extensions of existing units. The appellant argued that these sheds were expansions of their existing units and should be treated as part of the same factory. The department contended that separate IEMs were filed for these sheds, indicating they were independent units. The Tribunal observed that common registration was granted by the Assistant Commissioner, suggesting that the sheds were considered part of the same unit.

3. Bar of Limitation and Suppression of Facts:
The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation as they had applied for amendments to their registration, which was granted without any suppression of facts. The Tribunal noted that the department's knowledge of the facts and the acceptance of returns without objection implied that the extended period for demand could not be invoked.

4. Validity of Demand Beyond Scope of Show Cause Notice:
The appellant contended that the Commissioner confirmed a demand exceeding the amount specified in the show cause notice, including Education Cess, which was not originally raised. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had indeed traveled beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

5. Retrospective Application of Registration and Exemption Benefits:
The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including Balkrishna Industries Ltd. and Escorts, which established that benefits of exemption could not be disallowed retrospectively if the department had registered the premises as one factory. The Tribunal also cited Grasim Industries Ltd., which held that premises treated as one factory under other statutes could not be considered separate under the Excise Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings were not maintainable under Section 72(6) of the Finance Act, 2011, and that the eligibility questioned in the show cause notice had become redundant. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed with consequential relief.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the open Court on 20 November 2019.

---