J.H. Joglekar, Member (T) - (1.)THE appellants are manufacturers of sugar and availed of the concessional rate of clearance granted by Notification Nos. 130/83 -CE and 131/83 -CE, both dated 27.4.1983. This concession was available to those factories who either set up a new factory or increased the capacity of an existing factory pursuant to a letter of intent or an Industrial Licence issued to them during the period 1.10.1980 to 30.9.1985. The Assistant Collector in his order observed that the capacity increase in the case of the appellants was certified on 26.2.1986. Subsequent to the dates specified in the Notifications. In this belief, we (sic) confirmed the duty of Rs. 2,82,288/ -. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld this order, the present appeal has been filed. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) and before us also, strong reliance is placed on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Thandava Co -op. Sugars Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam (1994 (69) ELT 297 (T)). The Commissioner distinguished this judgment on facts. The Commissioner also did not accept the certificate of actual expansion by the Directorate of Sugar on the ground that the physical expansion was not preceded by the issue of letter of intent or an Industrial Licence.
(2.)ON record is the letter from the Directorate of Sugar dated 6.7.1978 addressed to the appellants to the effect that for affecting expansion, the liberalised Licencing Policy did not require obtaining an Industrial Licence. Vide another letter dated 26.5.1980, the Directorate informed the present appellants that their proposal for expansion had been registered on 2.5.1980. There is also a certificate dead 29.3.1990 to the effect that on 15.12.1981, the appellants had completed their expansion.
When these facts are examined in the light of the cited judgment, we find that the ratio of the judgment would apply. In that case also, the application for expansion has been made before the dates prescribed in the notifications. The Tribunal in their judgment had also referred to the certificate given by the Chief Directorate of Sugar dated 29.9.1990 granting the additional free sale quota. We find that the name of the appellants in the cited case as well as the name of the present appellants stand recorded in the same certificate. On the basis of the documents on record, adopting the ratio of the cited judgment, we hold that even if the application was made prior to the period listed in the notification, the expansion having been completed during the prescribed period, the benefit of notification was available to the present appellants. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with consequential benefits, if any.