TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was engaged in manufacture of blow moulded and injection moulded plastic products since year 2010 and was availing the Central Excise exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. The said unit was entitled for benefit of the above said notification upto 22.03.2020. After taking the said M/s RKS industries, in the year 2015, the ownership was changed and the constitution of the unit was also changed from firm to a company and thereafter a unit was shifted from its existing location to Village Lehi along with its entire plant and machinery. The appellant also purchased certain fresh plant and machinery which was installed in the same unit. All these changes were duly approved by department of industry as well as by the Central Excise department without any objection and the appellant enjoyed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. The present dispute is in respect of whether the appellant is entitled for exemption to the new products added by installing fresh plant machinery i.e. cosmetics and homeopathic drugs medicaments till 22.03.2020 or not? The appellant filed a declaration on 04.05.2017 for 'addition of product' namely cos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xist prior to such event. In this case, admittedly, M/s RKS Industries was existing and was eligible for the exemption. Moreover, even as on today, after all changes made in name, constitution, location etc., the appellant unit availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 for the old products i.e. moulded plastic products & HDPE bottles, therefore, it is admitted fact by Revenue that the unit of the appellant was very much existing at the time of adding of new products i.e. cosmetics and homeopathic drugs medicaments. It is his contention that it is not a new unit set up by the appellant but new products have been manufactured by the appellant. In fact, there is no dispute to the fact that there is physically only one unit wherein the fresh plant and machinery was installed in addition to the existing plant and machinery. The old as well as new products are being manufactured in the same building. No separate ground plan is submitted to the Central Excise Authorities or to the Industries Department. There are no separate facilities for the fresh plant and machinery. Most importantly, there is no finding of physical verification to establish the exi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E dated 10.06.2003. He further submits that as exemption with regard to Unit No. 1 has been expired on 30.04.2017, therefore, in the guise of addition of product, the appellant is trying to continue the exemption available to unit no. 1. In that circumstances, the ld. Commissioner has rightly denied the exemption of new products. He further submits that circulars relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the appellant, the clarification were issued to assist bona-fide needs and an eligible unit to enhance or diversify its production capacity and the exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 and do not allow the installation of a new unit in the guise of enhancement or diversification of production capacity beyond the cutoff date. It was never the intention of the above circulars to extend such exemption to a new unit commencing its commercial production of totally new products after the cutoff date i.e. 31.03.2010. He further submits that the case of the appellant is clearly covered by the decision of M/s Wipro Enterprises Ltd. (Supra). He also submits that reliance made by the ld. Counsel on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Khurana Oleo Chemicals Vs. CCE reported....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... residual period and the department has never objected to the same. However, the dispute arose when the party i.e. M/s Richfeel Health & Beauty Private Limited Unit-II, in addition to the existing products during the month of may 2017 i.e. much after the sunset clause by setting up a new unit and have claimed benefit of area based exemption in respect of the addition of new products." 9. The only dispute has been raised by the ld. Commissioner to deny the exemption to new products is that the appellant has established a new unit with new plant and machinery to manufacture totally different products, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 as the said unit is not having license to manufacture of cosmetics and homeopathic drugs before 31.03.2010 and the ld. Commissioner has denied the exemption Notification No. 56/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 on the following grounds: "1. The subject unit i.e. M/s Richfeel Health and Beauty Pvt. Ltd. Malpur, Baddi (H.P) was not having the license to manufacture cosmetics and homeopathic drugs before 31.03.2010. 2. That while shifting the plant and machinery from Lehi, the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Board are binding and aims at adoption of uniform products. In that regard reliance has been rightly placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. (supra) and such circulars are binding on the department. Placing reliance on earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of CCE v. Usha Martin Industries, 1997 (94) E.L.T. 460 (S.C) = (1997) 7 SCC 47; Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) = (1996) 10 SCC 387; CCE v. Jayant Dalal (P) Ltd., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 638 (S.C) = (1997) 10 SCC 402 and CCE v. Kores (India) Ltd., 1997 (89) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.) = (1997) 10 SCC 338, Hon'ble the Supreme Court concluded in para 5 as under :- "5. It is clear from the abovesaid pronouncements of this Court that, apart from the fact that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said Circulars even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the statutory provision. The ratio of the judgment of this Court further precludes the right of the Department to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the Circulars. Therefore, i....