Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages on 10 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(169)ELT152(TRI-KOLKATA)
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati, vide which she has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents by extending the benefit of exemption Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 8.7.99. The said Notification granted benefit to the units situated in the North-East Area, after the installed capacity of the already existing unit is increased by 25%. The dispute in the present appeal is as to whether the respondents claim of increase in installed capacity is correct or not.
2. The Revenue has challenged the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that there was contradicting information about the installed capacity submitted by the Chartered Engineer of the assessee and the Certificate obtained from the Directorate of Industries and submitted by the assessee, shows different figures and percentage of expansion. As such, the evidence produced by the respondents is not worthy of reliance.
3. After hearing both sides, we find that the Commissioner (appeals) has dealt with the above contention of the Revenue in her Order, when she observed as under : -
"There is definitely some variance between the two certificates issue by the Chartered Engineers and the Director of Industries. However, this has been explained by the appellant through flow chart submitted by them. I find that the Director of Industries has issued the certificate based on capacity of the filling are which according to the appellant is the highest bottleneck i.e. highest limiting area. The Chartered engineers, However, has taken another area of limiting factor in the process of manufacture; but both these certificates are correct when taken separately and are not in contradiction with the statement and flow chart submitted by the appellant. It would appear that the Assistant Commissioner neither took the trouble to go through the flow chart or understand the flow chart. Even taking the highest limiting are i.e. the filling point, I find the increase is much higher than 25%."
4. Shri Ravinder Narain, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent company, also explains that in any case, according to both the certificates submitted by the Chartered Engineer as also by the Director of Industries, the expansion in the installed capacity is much more than 25%. In there circumstances, the Revenue is not justified in denying them the benefit of the Notification.
5. After hearing the submissions made by both sides, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shilling Vs. Dorria Tea Estate reported in 2003 (156) ELT 999 (Tri-Kolkata), has held that overall increase of 25% in installed capacity is the requirement of Notification Nos. 32/99 and 33/99, and these is no requirement that all the Sections of manufacturing unit should be individually increased by 25%. Inasmuch as in the present case, going by either of the Certificates, the increase is more than 25%, we are of the view that the benefit of the Notification is question has been rightly extended to the respondents. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal is rejected.