TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion on 21.04.2008 for availing area based exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 in respect of Unit-II. While filing the intimation to avail exemption under the said notification in respect of Unit-II, the main appellant submitted detailed ground plan demarcating Unit-I and Unit-II of the manufacturing facility in the said premises. 2. The jurisdictional officers of Central Excise conducted certain enquiry and verification regarding the eligibility of the main appellant for the abovementioned area based exemption. The Revenue entertained a view that the claim of the main appellant to the effect that Unit-I and Unit-II are to be dealt with separately for excise duty purposes and the exemption claimed for Unit-II on such basis, is not legally tenable. The Revenue held a view that the factory of the main appellant is one and the same and as such the main appellant cannot avail exemption under Notification No.50/2003 for some of the products and not in respect of some other products. Holding that the main appellant is not eligible for exemption under the said notification as it was considered that only one factory was in existence, proceedings were initiated again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order. Para No. Findings of the Ld. Commissioner Specific Rebuttal 5.30 & 5.50 The units are not independent of each other based on usage of common water, electricity, canteen, DG sets, administrative sections etc. The whole premises of the Appellant fall within the ambit of a single unit/factory and the Appellants have artificially created two units in the same factory with the motive to illegally claim exemption. There is no legal bar in having one administrative section or other common facilities for the two units, in the same factory. Similarly, there is no requirement that factory has separate lease deed, DIC Registration, Trade Tax Registration, Pollution control registration, as these requirements are factory specific and not unit specific. 5.17 Since two units are not situated on different locations/premises, the justification given vide letter dated 07.!2.2011 is questionable. Vide letter dt. 07.12.2001, Appellants submitted that products manufactured are separate and distinct and both units have separate manufacturing facilities, labour etc. Further, two units are not retrained from simultaneously availing benefit under Rule 18/19 of the Excise Rules and Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the duty is required to be paid can be manufactured. However, in case of area based exemption, no such liberty has been given. Comparison between SSI exemption and Area based exemption Notifications is incorrect. The reasoning adopted by the Ld. Commissioner that SSI exemption envisages both types of clearances also supports the case of the Appellant, as in the present case, Notification No.50/2003 uses different terminologies which is clear indicator of the legislative intention of treating the expressions 'unit' & 'factory' differently. 5.35 Ld. Commissioner has held that before granting registration, no physical verification was carried out and registration certificate was granted on the basis of declaration made by the Appellant in the application for registration. Department had acknowledged the declaration along with revised site plan wherein, presence of Unit-I and Unit-II was evident. Post verification of the Appellant's premises conducted when Range Officer Shri V.K. Bhatnagar and Sector Officer, Shri B.S. Bisht visited the factory premises of the Appellant for post registration verification. 5. The ld. AR submitted that impugning order examined the full factu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not been used in the said notification. Whereas we note that para 2 of the said notification which talks about application of exemption to different kinds of units clearly states that the said exemption is for new industrial unit set-up in the declared area or industrial units existing but undertaking substantial expansion. In other words, the exemption itself is available only to "industrial units". The exemption is not extended to factory. It is clear that the terms of the notification when read together will clearly reveal that different terms are used in different contexts and summary conclusion based on inference and presumption as made by the original authority is not supported. 8. The CBEC vide their letter dated 21.03.2006 addressed to Secretary (Industrial Development), Government of Uttaranchal clarified that in case of a manufacturer, producing motor vehicles, if a new assembly line/ production line is installed after 31.03.2007, then the benefit of said notification would not be available to motor vehicles manufactured on such assembly/production line. Similarly, if the commercial production of a particular kind of specified goods has not commenced before 31.03.2007,....