Page 51 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A143

51152/2015-EX(DB), dated 19-2-2015 as reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 201 (Tri.-
Del.) (Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner). C.A. Diary No. 33482 of 2018
filed by Commissioner of C. Ex. & Service Tax, Dehradun against CESTAT Final
Order Nos. 56294-56298/2017, dated 29-8-2017 as reported in 2018 (359) E.L.T.
617 (Tri.-Del.) (Victoria Automotive Inc. v. Commissioner). C.A. Diary No. 45040 of
2018 filed by Commissioner of C. Ex. and Service Tax, Meerut-I against CESTAT
Final Order No. 56653/2017, dated 12-9-2017 as reported in 2018 (359) E.L.T. 559
(Tri.-Del.) (Veekay Surgicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner). C.A. Nos. 2592-2593 of
2019 filed by Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut against CESTAT Final Order Nos.
A/71655-71656/2017-EX (DB), dated 17-8-2017 as reported in 2019 (366) E.L.T.
839 (Tri.-All.) (Krsna Urja Projects Ltd. v. Commissioner). C.A. No. 3956 of 2019
filed by Commissioner of C. Ex. & Service Tax, Meerut-I against CESTAT Final
Order No. 71720/2018, dated 20-7-2018 as reported in 2019 (366) E.L.T. 834 (Tri.-
All.) (Vaibhav Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner). C.A. No. 13292 of 2019 filed by
Commissioner of C. Ex. & Service Tax, Meerut-I against CESTAT Final Order No.
A/51590/2015-EX(DB), dated 12-5-2015 as reported in 2015 (329) E.L.T. 255 (Tri.-
Del.) (Vaibhav Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner).
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the Notifica-
tion No. 27/2005-C.E., dated 19-5-2005 amending Notification No. 50/2003-C.E.
by substituting ‘Village Selakui’ in place of Selakui in Column 3 of Annexure II of
the said Notification, is clarificatory in nature and exemption to the assessee’s
units located in Selakui Industrial Region cannot be denied prior to such
amendment when Khasra numbers of such units are covered under Serial No. 11
of the said Annexure.
The Tribunal had further held that the unit set up before 7-1-2003 and
commencing commercial production after the said date is to be considered as a
new unit and eligible to area based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-
C.E. from the date when it had filed necessary declaration though it had started
trial production from January, 2003 to March, 2003.
The Tribunal had also held that a factory manufacturing more than one
commodity in its different sections has to be treated consisting of more than one
manufacturing units and each section is independently eligible for exemption
under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. as exemption under the said notification is
unit-wise and not factory-wise. Therefore, merely because substantial expansion
in the installed capacity was undertaken in respect of one unit only and not in
respect of other unit located in the same factory compound, the benefit of exemp-
tion under the said notification cannot be denied to the unit in which the sub-
stantial expansion in the installed capacity was undertaken.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan,
Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Ms. Nisha
Bagchi, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Mr. S.S. Rebello, Ms.
Arzu Paul, Ms. Neeleshwar Parani and Ms. Riya Soni,
Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Mr. Tushar Singh & Mr. Punit
Dutt Tyagi, AORs, Mr. Mayank K. Agar, Mr. Partha
S. Bose, Ms. Pankhuri, Mr. Mohd. Arif, Ms. Charanya
Lakshmikumaran, Mr. Aaditya Bhattacharya,
Ms. Monica Kasturi and Ms. Apeksha Mehta,
Advocates, for the Respondent.
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  51