SSI exemption for ancillary units and no extended limitation where investment figures were disclosed

A duly registered small scale industrial unit, including an ancillary unit, was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; higher investment in plant and machinery was not, by itself, a disqualifying factor where the registration certificate identified the unit as SSI. The notification was read to include ancillary units within small scale industries for exemption purposes, and departmental registration could not be ignored. On limitation, disclosure of the SSI certificate, investment figures and regular assessment of returns meant suppression was not established, so the extended period of recovery was unavailable. On those facts, demand and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a unit registered as a small scale industrial unit, including an ancillary unit, was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. despite higher investment in plant and machinery. (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period in the absence of suppression.

Issue (i): Whether a unit registered as a small scale industrial unit, including an ancillary unit, was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. despite higher investment in plant and machinery.

Analysis: Para 4 of the notification confined exemption to a factory registered with the Director of Industries or the Development Commissioner as a small scale industry. The registration certificate showed the appellants as a small scale industrial unit. The distinction between ordinary small scale units and ancillary units was held to be only for the purpose of enabling installation of sophisticated machinery, and ancillary units were treated as small scale industries for the purpose of the exemption. The investment in plant and machinery was not treated as a disqualifying factor under the notification, and the departmental registration could not be disregarded.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the small scale industry exemption, and denial of exemption on the ground of investment above Rs. 35 lakhs was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period in the absence of suppression.

Analysis: The classification lists disclosed the existence of the SSI certificate and the investment figures, and the returns had been regularly assessed. On those facts, there was no basis to infer suppression so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the department, and the demand on that basis could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty were set aside and the appeal succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of exemption under a small scale industry notification, a duly registered ancillary unit is to be treated as a small scale industry, and where the relevant facts are disclosed, the extended period for recovery cannot be invoked absent suppression.

---