2016 (8) TMI 841

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wdhury, Supdt.(AR) and Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) appeared for Revenue and submitted that early hearing application of the Revenue in this appeal was allowed by this Bench by an order dated 10.07.2014. Revenue sought adjournments on 20.10.2014, 11.03.2015, 05.05.2015 and 18.11.2015 when this matter was fixed for hearings. Shri K.Chowdhury (AR) during the hearing proceedings as well as through written submissions argued that Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Veneers and Plywood falling under chapter-44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. That as per an order dated 15.01.1998 passed by Supreme Court there were restrictions on installation and expansion of wood based industries. That inspite of the strict instructions and limited utilization of timber by Apex Court the Respondent sought 25% expansion under Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. That Revenue has filed this appeal to determine whether Respondent has carried out substantial expansion in the installed capacity for becoming eligible to expansion under area based exemption Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. It is the case of the Revenue that as per the correspondence exchanged between the departme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bench are relied:- (a) CCE, Shillong vs. Hatikuli Tea Estate [2008(230)ELT 497(Tri.-Kol)] (b) CCE, Shillong vs. Binnakandy Tea Estate [2009(235)ELT 686(Tri.-Kol)] (c) Farm Fresh Foods Pvt.Ltd.v.CCE, Chandigarh [2009(241)ELT 74(Tri.Del.)] (iii) That as per clarification dated 07.10.2005, issued by CC, Meerut with respect to similar area based exemption 49/2003-CE & 50/2003-CE both dated 10.06.2003, expansion at each and every section of the manufacturing unit is not required. Learned Advocate also made the Bench go through para 4 of CBEC clarification F.No.354/08/98-TRU dated 09.07.1999 and argued that as per Steel Authority of India vs. CC, Bombay [2000 (15) ELT 42(SC ) department cannot take different views in different states. (iv) That respondent also obtained subsequently expansion certification from a Chartered Engineer regarding more than 25% exemption undertaken. That another report from National Institute of Technology, Agartala (A Central Govt. Institute), certifying more than 25% enhancement in installed capacity, was also considered by the Adjudicating authority as per third para on internal page 34 of the Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5.2005 has not taken veneer production into consideration while arriving at more than 25% expansion in installed capacity. (iii) That Adjudicating authority has not enquired into the efficiency of the transformer and whether transformer of 1250 KVA will give 100% output. (iv) That original ground plan showing list of plant & machineries before expansion carried out, could have been called by the Adjudicating authority. 6. So far as point at para 5(i) above is concerned it is observed from last para on internal page-35 of the Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2011 that PCCF vide a letter dated 15.10.2009 has clarified that licensed capacity of the appellant for veneer production is 6625 CUM and plywood production is 26000 cum and that no permission from the forest department is required for enhancement of installed capacity if the enhancement is within the licensed capacity. In view of the clarification dated 15.10.2009 discussed by the Adjudicating authority it cannot be said that no expansion in the installed capacity could be enhanced by the Respondent. This letter dated 15.10.2009 has not been considered by the reviewing Committee of Chief Commissioners while passing Review....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (iv) CCE, Shillong vs. Doarnia Tea Estate [2003 (158) ELT 999(T)] (v) CCE, Shillong vs. Hindustan Coca Beverages [2004 (159) ELT 162 (T)] In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. CC, Bombay[2000 (115) ELT 42(SC)] it has been held by Apex Court that departmental authorities cannot take one view in one state and a different view in another state. 7.1 Similar view has been taken in the following case laws that in all cases additional machinery need not be added to increase installed capacity and even replacement of old machines with new machines without changing other parameters, may also lead to more than 25% expansion :- (i) CCE vs. Bhandari Deepak Industries Pvt.Ltd. [2015 (318) ELT 677 (Tri.)] (ii) CCE vs. Sudarshan Pine Products [2014 (305) ELT 158 (Tri.)] (iii) Rana Casting Ltd. vs. CCE [2010 (257) ELT 104 (Tri.)] (iv) CCE & C vs. Rana Castings Ltd. [2015 (320) ELT 396(Uttarakhand)] (v) CCE, Shillong vs. Hatikuli Tea Estate [2008(230)ELT 497(Tri.-Kol)] (vi) CCE, Shillong vs. Binnakandy Tea Estate [2009(235)ELT 686(Tri.-Kol)] (vii) Farm Fresh Foods Pvt.Ltd.v.CCE, Chandigarh [2009(241)ELT 74(T....