Industrial exemption eligibility requires a proper claim basis and genuine new unit conditions, not mere ownership or registration changes.

Eligibility for a later industrial exemption notification depended on the claim having been raised on that basis and on satisfaction of its substantive conditions; a refund originally claimed and sanctioned under an earlier notification could not be converted at the appellate stage into a claim under Notification No. 20/2007-CE. The unit also failed to qualify as a new industrial unit, because mere change in ownership, control, product line, or fresh registration did not establish fresh commencement of commercial production without the prescribed expansion or a genuinely new setup. The denial of the later exemption was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had claimed and was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007. (ii) Whether the assessee's unit could be treated as a new industrial unit that commenced commercial production on 11.04.2007.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had claimed and was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007.

Analysis: The refund claim before the lower authority was made under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.99, and the refund was sanctioned on that basis. The later notification was not the basis of the claim before the original authority. The assessee therefore could not assert entitlement to the later notification at the appellate stage on a ground not originally raised.

Conclusion: The assessee was not eligible to claim the benefit of Notification No. 20/2007-CE in the present proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's unit could be treated as a new industrial unit that commenced commercial production on 11.04.2007.

Analysis: A unit qualifies as new only if it commences commercial production on or after 01.04.2007, or if an existing unit undergoes the prescribed substantial expansion in plant and machinery and then commences production from the expanded capacity within the stipulated period. Mere change in ownership, control, product line, or surrender of an earlier registration followed by a fresh registration does not by itself establish a new industrial unit. On the facts, the same premises, same PAN, and continued availing of the earlier exemption negatived the claim of a newly set up unit.

Conclusion: The unit could not be treated as a new industrial unit commencing commercial production on 11.04.2007.

Final Conclusion: The denial of the later notification was sustained because the claim was not made before the original authority and the factual changes relied upon were insufficient to establish a new eligible unit.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for a later industrial exemption requires satisfaction of the notification's substantive conditions, and a mere change in ownership, management, or product, without the prescribed expansion or a genuine new unit, does not establish fresh commencement of commercial production.

---