TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stly consumed captively in the manufacture of their two main final products. The appellant undertook substantial expansion in the installed capacity for manufacture of WFCP during the period July to October, 2003 in which the production capacity is said to have been increased from 1,44,000 unit per year to 3,00,000 and started availing the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE w.e.f. 03.10.2003. The increase in production capacity was duly supported by a certificate from Professor of IIT Roorkee, IISC, Bangalore besides a Chartered Engineer Shri A.D. Deopujari. The appellant started substantial expansion of their other product, WCCP in September October, 2004 by addition of automated conveyor systems, additional conveyors, heating oven and other plant and machinery. The increase in installed capacity of this product was said to be from 1818 to 4000 (approximately) units per annum which was in turn supported by a certificate from Professor of IIT Roorkee. The appellant started availing the exemption benefit for this product w.e.f. 17.11.2004. 3. In 2006, Revenue issued several show cause notices proposing the denial of exemption under the Notification No. 50/2003 to WFC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a). * CCE, Dibrugarh vs. Hindustan Coca - Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. - 2005 (186) ELT 242 (Tri. Kolkata). (iv) On the question of judicial discipline the appellant contended that the Commissioner vide her order dated 30.01.2006 has allowed exemption to the appellant. This order has been accepted by the Department and hence the department cannot take a contrary stand in subsequent proceeding. (v) Revenue had already demanded the duty on the intermediate products namely water filter cartridge and EVA food grade pipes, through a series of show cause notices covering the period April 2005 to March 2006, seeking to deny exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. All the notices have been dropped by the respectively adjudicating authorities. Under such circumstances, the appellant claimed that it would not be open to the Commissioner to readjudicate the demand of duty on the same products for the same period. (vi) The appellant has also taken serious objection to the Commissioner relying on two reports by the Assistant Commissioner dated 19.11.2007 and 13.02.2008 which indicate that he had ordered further investigations after receiving the reply of the appellant and after h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been allowed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. He however has held that substantial expansion has been done only in the period subsequent to the disputed period, for the intermediate products namely Water Filter Cartridge and EVA Food Grade Pipes. What would constitute substantial expansion has been clarified by the CBEC vide Circular dated 21.01.2004 as under: "following guidelines are circulated to explain the scope of "substantial expansion" so far as it relates to the applicability of above mentioned notifications. (a) Increase in installed capacity of an existing unit by not less than 25% should be the result of installation of additional plant and machinery. Any increase in the installed capacity by means other than installation of additional plant and machinery would not qualify for the benefit of exemption under "substantial expansion". (b) As substantial expansion is defined in terms of increase in installed capacity by 25% or more, value of investment in plant and machinery is not the criteria to define substantial expansion. So long as additional installation of plant and machinery results into increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce in each and every section of the manufacturing unit. This view has been held by the Tribunal in many cases, some of which are placed below: * CCE, Meerut-II vs. Prakash Straw Board Pvt. Ltd., - 2016 (332) ELT 741 (Tri. Delhi). * CCE, Chandigarh vs. Bhandari Deepak Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (318) ELT 677 (Tri. Del.) * CCE, Shillong vs. Monabari Tea Estate - 2003 (154) ELT 230 (Tri. Kolkata) * CCE, Shillong vs. Dorria Tea Estate -2005 (156) ELT 999 (Tri - Kolkata). 10. The above view has also been taken by the Commissioner in her order dated 30.01.2006 for the prior period. However, in the impugned order, ld. Commissioner has taken a contrary stand and demanded the duty on the intermediate products for the reason that these products are separate and distinct articles for which substantial expansion has taken place only much later. We find this view of the Commissioner is totally erroneous and contrary to the judicial pronouncements on the subject, as outlined above. Both the show cause notices covered in the impugned order seek to demand duty on clearances of the final products WFCP and WCCP. A very small amount has also been demanded on clearances of spare, cartridges ....