TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty certificate can not be refused. ii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in not considering the fact that the final registration with the Industries Department was in continuation of the provisional registration granted in 1996 and 2001. iii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in twisting the fact of the case and without proper appreciation of fact has recorded the perverse finding which has vitiated the law. iv) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the plot no.F-63 allotted in favour of Ajay Kumar Gupta Promotor Director in 1994 will not be deemed to be the plot of the unit until it is registered in the name of unit. v) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the registration of the plot in the name of unit and the amendment in the registration certificate of the Industries Department are the material dates and as such the applicant is not entitled to exemption under Section 4-A of the Act in view of notification no. 3867 dated 22.12.2001. vi) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the basic legislative intent of the provisions of Section 4-A granting incentives fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Ajit Kumar Gupta to transfer the plot number F 63 by means of its letter dated 17/12/2001 In favour of the revisionist and it was subsequently registered with the Industries Department on 25/03/2002. 6.The above facts were considered by the Tribunal and while dismissing the appeal, recorded a finding that Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta could not have transferred the said land in favour of the revisionist prior to 17.12.2001 as the lease agreement clearly stipulated In clause 4(j) that "licensee will not directly or indirectly transfer, assign, sale, encumber or part with his interest under or benefit of this agreement or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the grantor and it shall be open for the grantor to refuse such consent or grant the same subject to such conditions and may be laid down by the grantor in that behalf" 7.The Tribunal was of the considered view that in light of the aforesaid restrictions the land could not have been transferred in favour of the revisionist. It also rejected the existence and validity of the agreement to sell and that Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta was not the owner of the said land and therefore could not have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnover of sales of such goods from the date of first sale or the date following the expiration of six months from the date of starting production whichever is earlier. (b) in respect of any goods manufactured in a unit which has undertaken expansion and the date of production in excess of the base production falls on or before March 31, 2000, no tax shall be payable, or as the case may be, the tax shall be payable at the reduced rate, by the manufacturer thereof on the turnover of sales of the quantity of goods manufactured in excess of the base production. (c) in respect of any goods manufactured in a unit which has undertaken diversification and the date of production of goods of a nature different from those manufactured earlier by such units falls on or before March 31, 2000, no tax shall be payable, or as the case may be, the tax shall be payable at the reduced rate by the manufacturer thereof on the turnover of sales of goods, which are of a nature different from those, manufactured by the unit earlier: Provided that the unit intending to claim tax relief under this notification shall intimate in writing accordingly to the assessing authority within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visionist submitted that the provision of the exemption notification deserve liberal consideration and the revisionist was validly transferred the land, which was already alloted to its Director-Promotor and there is no illegality in the same. He relied on the agreement to sell and submitted that the plot was transferred prior to the cut off date prescribed in the exemption notification, and hence he fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in the said notification. With regard to the old machinery, it was submitted that the same was not used in the manufacturing process and hence has assailed the findings recorded by the authority below and urged this Court to set aside the judgment of the Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has supported the findings recorded by the authorities below and prayed that the revision deserves to be dismissed. 13. Considering the above submissions, it is necessary to interpret the exemption notification and to analyze its provisions in order to determine as to whether the conditions laid down would be directory or mandatory. 14.In Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar v. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [1989] Supp. 2 S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fications made thereunder with regard to such factory or workshop and includes an industrial unit manufacturing the same goods at any other place in the State or an industrial unit manufacturing any other goods on, or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop but does not include. 15. The above definition provides that only those units which fulfil the conditions laid down in the notifications issued under the Act or Rules are said to be "new units" and eligible for exemption under section 4A of the Act. Thus, fulfilment of" conditions mentioned in the notifications is mandatory and to be strictly complied with. 16. In the case of Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606, apex court held as follows: "16. We are, however, of the opinion that, On principle, the decision of this court in Mangalore Chemicals, [1991] 83 STC 234 (SC); 1992 Supp (1) SCC 21 and in Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd., [1991] 83 STC 251 (SC); 1990 SCC (Tax) 422 referred to therein- represents the correct view of law. The principle that in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision fails and is accordingly, dismissed." 16.Considering the aforesaid judgments with regard to the manner of interpretation of the Exemption Notification, it is noticed that the Eligibility Notification lay down conditions for seeking benefit of Exemption Notification, which have to be fulfilled and are mandatory in nature and have to be strictly complied with by the dealer if he wishes to claim exemption. In case any of the conditions are not fulfilled, same would dis-entitle the dealer from being granted benefit under the said notification. 17.Applying the aforesaid to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that even though the land did not belong to the Promotor/Director of the revisionist firm, but the same was sought to be transferred to the revisionist and that transfer can be said to have been completed on 17.01.2001, when UPSIDC directed for transfer of plot no. F-63 in favour of the revisionist firm. It cannot be said that prior to 17.01.2001, the land was transferred in favour of the revisionist. The validity of the agreement to sell dated 25.11.1999, has been doubted by the Tribunal as the original copy was never produced before the Tribunal nor were the ....