K.M. JOSEPH, J.

These appeals arise from a common order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”). The substantial questions of law raised are, essentially, the same. We would advert to the following substantial questions of law, which were admitted by the Court and on which notices were issued, as raised in CEXA No. 11 of 2015, which we would treat as the leading case:

“1. Whether by virtue of seeking addition of new items viz. ACSR Conductors and Steel Tubular Poles in the original Central Excise Registration Certificate of the existing unit of M/s Tirupati LPG Cylinders, engaged in the manufacture of LPG Cylinders, with the Conductor Division and Cylinder Division units being part of the same factory (as evident from the party’s action in not seeking a separate registration for the Conductor division), was it not necessary for the party to increase the capacity of the entire factory (comprising of Conductor & Cylinder Division) by 25% to qualify being benefited as per the stipulations of Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.200 as the word ‘unit’ or ‘industrial unit’ in common parlance is understood as the factory premises as it was in this context of synonymy that the appellant had on 30.11.2002 sought the addition in their existing certificate of registration?

Whether the fact that the Conductor Division of the factory commenced the commercial production before 07.01.2003, does not make the party / respondent not eligible for availing the benefits of Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003, as it has failed to adhere to its stipulations in having failed to commence commercial production on or after 07.01.2003?”

2. M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) was registered with the Central Excise Department and was engaged in the manufacture of LPG Cylinders. The factory is located in the industrial area Selakui, Dehradun. The Company addressed letter dated 30.11.2002 indicating that it wished to start manufacturing of ACSR Conductor and Steel Tubular Poles. A request was made that these products be endorsed in the existing central excise registration certificate. The Company addressed letter dated 11.07.2003. Therein, they indicated that they have started manufacturing of ACSR Conductors w.e.f. 01.04.2003. It was pointed out that they would be availing excise exemption benefits under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 as a new industrial unit. The SSI Registration showing the product ACSR Conductor being endorsed w.e.f. 01.04.2003 was made available (photocopy). The Company addressed another letter dated 27.11.2003 giving description of the goods and giving the date on which the option under Notification No. 76/2003 dated 05.11.2003 was exercised, which was 20.07.2003. It was stated that the unit was a new one. A clarification was sought by the Superintendent of Central Excise vide letter dated 06.08.2004 in regard to the discrepancy noted in letters dated 11.07.2003 and 27.11.2003, as, while on the one hand, in letter dated 11.07.2003, 01.04.2003 was intimated as the date of production of the Conductors, on the other hand, in letter dated 27.11.2003, 20.07.2003 was shown as the date on which the option under the Notification was exercised. Response from the Company came in the form of communication dated 17.08.2004, wherein it inter alia stated that the Company had commissioned the plant and machinery for the manufacture of ACSR Conductors in the month of April, 2003 and also commenced production of the same; and that there was an expansion programme pertaining to cylinders in process and they filed a composite declaration on 06.01.2004, wherein grounds of exemption for both the products were mentioned. The Department took the stand, apparently, that the Company had evaded central excise duty on the clearances of Aluminium Wire with Steel Core (WEASEL) & Aluminium Wire with S