2025 (9) TMI 1466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts projected, the petitioner is a company which is in the business of cement manufacturing. In the year 2007, a policy was adopted by the Government in the name North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the NEIIPP) whereby there were certain exemptions of central excise duty which was to be given to new as well as existing units undergoing substantial expansion. Such exemption was to be given for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production or expansion whichever is later. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had started its commercial production on 01.04.2008 and is a new unit. It is also admitted that the petitioner had got the exemption as a new unit for 10 years. It is however the case of the petitioner that on 01.02.2012 substantial expansion of the fixed capital more than 25% was made and therefore another application was made to seek further excise duty exemption for 10 years which however has been declined. 4. I have heard Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Central Excise. 5. Ms. Hawelia, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s already availed the benefit of the exemption under Clause 5 (a). He has submitted that for all purposes, the petitioner is construed to be a new unit as admittedly the commercial production has started from 01.04.2008. He has submitted that the aspect of an existing unit to claim exemption is on the condition of undertaking substantial expansion not less than 25% of the fixed capital. He has clarified that such exemption is entitled only to an existing unit which for all practical purposes would mean a unit which was in operation prior to the policy of 01.04.2007. He has clarified that the petitioner unit cannot be construed to be an existing unit and therefore the present claim is wholly unsustainable. He, accordingly justifies the impugned orders of rejection. 10. By drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited reported in (2022) 6 SCC 459, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that an exemption notification is to be strictly construed and there cannot be any addition or subtractions. He has also submitted that the notification is to be read as a whole. For r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ults in absurdity, which is so not found in the present case. 8.4 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent that in the event of ambiguity in a provision in a fiscal statute, a construction favourable to the assessee should be adopted is concerned, the said principle shall not be applicable to construction of an exemption notification, when it is clear and not ambiguous. Thus, it will be for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of the notification. Eligibility clause, it is well settled, in relation to exemption notification must be given effect to as per the language and not to expand its scope deviating from its language. Thus, there is a vast difference and distinction between a charging provision in a fiscal statute and an exemption notification." 12. Reference is also made on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs VVF limited reported in (2020) 20 SCC 57 wherein the aspect of promissory estoppel has been dealt with. He has lastly relied upon the case of Commerce Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 wherein it has again been laid down that an exemption notification is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1st day of March, 2017." 16. It clearly appears that a new unit which starts its commercial production after the date of the policy would be entitled to get the benefit and so far as existing units are concerned, they would also get such benefit if there is an expansion not less than 25% of the fixed capital. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a new unit and it is also admitted that in the status of a new unit it has got the benefit under Clause 5 (a). The claim is on the basis that the petitioner unit had undergone substantial expansion in the year 2012, which is more than 25% of the fixed capital and therefore had claimed for another exemption benefit. 17. The impugned order of rejection has been carefully perused. The rejection is on the basis that the benefits to be given under 5 (b) is only for an existing unit and not for a new unit undergoing a substantial expansion within the aforesaid period of 10 years. This Court is unable to accede to the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner unit, after availing of the exemption as a new unit can also be treated as an existing unit. A submission has been made on the aspect of equity that an ....