Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The said complex and /or the sheds situated in the complex have one common entry/ exit from the public road. Initially, the appellant had their manufacturing unit at Plot No. 'C' (Khasra No. 119), which was later on, shifted to Plot No. F, Khasra No. 119. There is no dispute about the exemption available to the manufacturing activity undertaken in the said unit at Plot 'F'/plot 'C'.

6. After 31.03.2010 (end of the period for claiming eligibility, to avail exemption), Circulars dated 22.12.2010, 17.02.2012 and 01.04.2013 have been issued by Board clarifying that the exempted units could also manufacture by installing new plant and machinery, there may be change in ownership of the eligible unit, the eligible unit may expand by acquiring an adjoining plot and installing new plant and machinery. It was further clarified that the expansion should be done by acquiring the adjoining Plot with atleast one common wall/ boundary to make it one unit.

7. The appellant expanded its commercial production by way of installing additional plant and machinery in the shed at Khasra No. 115 and being eligible in view of circulars dated 17.02.2012 read with 01.04.2013, exemption was claimed for the expanded capacity also.

Further, Plot 'B' of Khasra No. 119 was used for storage of raw material and finished goods.

8. It appeared to Revenue that the appellant was wrongly availing Area based exemption with respect to goods manufactured at Khasra No.115 and being claimed as adjacent plot/ shed, as the said plot - Khasra No. 115 could not be termed as adjacent to Plot-F/119, since there was a common road/ open space and other factory premises / manufacturing unit established in between the existing manufacturing units at Plot-F Khara No. 119, could not be made available or applicable to the manufacturing - expanded capacity at Plot No. 115, as the same was not adjacent. In the course of inspection by the officers on 17.11.2016 and physical verification of all the three sheds / manufacturing premises of the appellant and the adjoining area, it was observed that the manufacturing unit in question - main unit at Plot No. F/119, unit-II at Plot No. 115 and Unit 3 at Plot B/119, were found to be established at three different premises as detailed hereinabove in the sketch.

11. From the facts and records as discussed and detailed in foregoing paras, it appears that the unit at Plot - B of Khasra No. 119 and Khasra No. 115 of M/s SD could not be termed or considered as adjacent to the main unit of M/s SD at Plot No. F of Khasra No. 119 and therefore, units at Plot -B of Khasra No. 119 and at Khasra No. 115 cannot be treated as expansion of unit at Plot No. F of Khasra No. 119, for the purpose of area based exemption from payment of excise duty in terms of CBEC Circular No. 960/03/2012-CX.3 dated 17.02.2012. The CBEC had clarified that the situation of expansion of an eligible unit by acquiring an adjacent plot of land and installing new plant and machinery on such land, is akin to expansion by way of installing new plant and machinery inside the existing plot/ premises. Further, vide Circular No. 968/2/2013-CX dated 01.04.2013, CBEC clarified that para 5 of the aforesaid Circular dated 17.02.2012 is meant for a situation where the expansion is done by acquiring the adjoining plot with at least one common boundary, which merges with the existing plot/ premises to make it one unit; installing of new plant and machinery in a plot which is away from the existing plot is not akin to the situation mentioned in para 5 of the said circular and installation of plant and machinery on such a plot would tantamount to setting up another unit by the manufacturer, the eligibility of exemption of which is independent of the eligibility of exemption to the existing unit. It was thus finally clarified that the clarification in para 5 of the Circular No. 960/03/2012- CX dated 17.02.2012 is meant for the units which undertake expansion by acquiring the adjoining plot with at least one common boundary with the existing plot and merge it with the existing plot / premises to make it one unit.

14. To verify the declarations made by M/s SD to the jurisdictional Central Excise Commissionerate, the relevant file of M/s SD was called for from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Roorkee. On examination of the aforesaid file, it transpired that the appellant had neither submitted the map regarding main unit at Plot - F nor submitted any map showing factual expansion to the so- claimed adjacent plots.

15. It appears that the exemption from payment of excise duty which was initially extended to the appellant at Plot - C and subsequently to Plot-F (the existing main unit), had been incorrectly availed in respect of their unit-II and Unit-III, in as much as M/s SD had not fulfilled the conditions as laid down in the aforesaid CBEC Board's Circular, during expansion of their units (Unit-II & Unit-III). The main unit (at plot -F/ Khasra -119) has no common boundary with Unit-II or Unit-III and hence, Unit-II and Unit-III could not be termed as merged with the existing plot/ premises at Plot F of Khasra No. 119 to make these as one unit in terms of CBEC Circular No. 968/2/2013-CX dt. 01.04.2013. As discussed above, area based exemption from payment of excise duty to M/s SD, was not available in respect of goods manufactured and cleared from Unit-II and Unit-III, they were required to assess and discharge applicable Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,43,55,005/- on the goods viz 'Alovera Kanti Body Cleanser Soap' and 'Amla Hair Oil' falling under tariff item 34011190, 330590 of central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, manufactured in these units at Plot-B/ Khasra -119 and Plot at Khasra No. 115 during April 2016 to 16.11.2016 and assessed to Central Excise duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No., 49/2008-CE (NT). The gist of calculation of duty is tabulated as under:-