TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods such as detergent bars/detergent powder and speckles. The assessee-respondent set up their unit in Kutch district of Gujarat after 31-7-2001 for availing benefit of area based exemption Notification No. 39/2001-C.E., dated 31-7-2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Notification with an investment of Rs. 22,64,56,551/- in plant and machinery. The assessee commenced commercial production of goods on29-12-2005. The Notification provided for exemption which was equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001. When the final products were cleared excise du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected the refund claim. Lower adjudicating authority has also rejected the refund in respect of soda ash dense dust which was manufactured after31-12-2005after the introduction of aforesaid equipments. The lower adjudicating authority held that recredit of an amount of Rs. 98,76,749/- only to be allowed instead of refund in terms of Clause 2(c) of the Notification which was forfeited vide order dated 13-5-2008. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order to the extent of denial of 50% refund on the production of detergent bars in case of order No. 91/2008, dated 12-6-2008 and set aside the orders from No. 91 to 105 all dated 12-6-2008 and No. 165 dated 16-6-2008 to the extent of deduction of an amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2005learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed findings in para 11.1 to 11.5. As regards second issue wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) at para 12.1 to 12.3 allowed refund without abatement/reduction of duty so paid/reversed at the time of clearance of soda ash dense. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly held that deducting the refund amount from duty paid in PLA equivalent to the credit reversed was not justified. Therefore, though lower adjudicating authority's order restricting the refund was rightly set aside subject to verification of input documents and clearance of inputs on reversal of credit. The said findings of learned Commissioner (Appeals) have not been contested nor disputed in the present appeal and thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure for manufacture of detergent bars after 31-12-2005 and installation of one sigma mixture of production capacity of 3900 after 31-12-2005 is in addition to a sigma mixture of equal capacity already installed in the factory prior to 31-12-2005, has lead to enhancement in production capacity. This issue has been dealt with by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) at length in para 11.1 to 11.5 and gave cogent findings that the installation of the aforesaid equipment has not led to any enhancement of the production capacity. The aforesaid equipments were only to improve efficiency, to ease the problem of storage and handling of raw materials. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para 11.3 of order-in-appeal found that : "On perusal of the decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the already installed capacity i.e. 75,000 Metric Tones and the said fact has not been refuted by the lower Authority in his order." The department didn't challenge the findings of the lower adjudicating authority. Revenue could not produce any document or any evidence which shows enhancement of production capacity. The Revenue has also placed reliance on clarification on Point No. 1 issued by letter F. No. 110/21/2006 CX3, dated10-7-2008. Since there is no change in installed capacity the Board's clarification is not relevant to the instant case. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Point No. 2 of the aforesaid Board's clarification wherein it has been clarified that as long as there is no increase in the capacity of ....