Date of Order: 23 September 2022

Facts

• The applicant namely, M R Tubes Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 01.03.2013 with ATSPL for the transfer of the industrial property in favor of the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 59,45,000/-. This consideration was to include the cost of part value the of plant and machinery, raw material, in-process goods, and finished goods. The MOU also provided that possession of the said unit would be transferred through a sale deed.
• Thereafter, ATSPL submitted a letter dated 06.04.2013 to the Assistant Commissioner mentioning that it had commenced commercial production on 30.03.2010 and was, therefore, eligible to file the declaration for availing exemption, which it intended to avail from 22.04.2013. 
• Appeal was filed by Appellant to assail the common order dated 19/23.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing two appeals that had been filed to assail the orders dated 17.09.2010 and 23.10.2019 respectively passed by the Assistant Commissioner denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003–CE dated 10.06.20032 and confirming the demand of Central Excise duty with interest and penalty.

Issue

• Whether the exemption is available in the instant case from the whole of the duty of excise in regard to goods manufactured in specified areas in the States of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh?

Order

• The authorities observed that the appellant had purchased the entire unit, as is clear from the MOU itself. The agreement was for the transfer of the entire industrial property for a total consideration of 59,45,000/- which comprised plant and machinery also. Part of the said total consideration of Rs. 29,45,000/- related to sheds, for which the sale deed dated 14.08.2013 was executed and partly comprised a lease of land for which the lease deed of Rs. 29,26,376/- was executed. The balance amount was for plant and machinery. The appellant paid this entire amount of Rs. 59,45,000/- from its bank account, which is supported by the Certificate of the auditor certifying payment of the entire amount as agreed.
• The authorities have seen that the appellant was entitled to exemption under the notification for the reason that the specific issue that was remanded by the Tribunal to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner has been decided in favor of the appellant.
• Further, it was stated that the appellant had not disputed that ATSPL had expressed its unwillingness to pursue its claim for claiming exemption under the notification by the letter dated 06.04.2010. The letter dated 08.04.2010 was a subsequent letter that also made reference to the earlier letter dated 06.04.2010.
• The authorities therefore dismissed the two appeals.