The assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical products. The respondent had a manufacturing unit at Aurangabad. Later on, the assessee established another unit at Daman. Yet another unit referred to as Unit-2 at Daman was set up at the same site. The assessee claimed exemption of an income arising out of its manufacturing activities carried out at the Daman units in terms of S.  80IA of the Act,  The Revenue rejected the claim on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the assessee had utilised old machinery, valuation of which was in excess of 20% of the total installed machinery. Secondly, that the Unit-2 was a mere extension of the existing Unit-1 and was not an independent manufacturing unit. The Tribunal had taken into account the valuation of the existing machinery used at Daman and the valuation of the written down value of the machinery transferred from Aurangabad to come to the conclusion that the same did not exceed 20% of the total value of the machinery.  On appeal the Tribunal held that  in Unit-1, the assessee was manufacturing oral liquids only, whereas at the Unit-2, the assessee had started manufacturing tablets, capsules as well as certain orally administered liquids. The assessee had also commenced for the first time manufacturing activity of certain antibiotics. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the formation of Unit-2 at Daman cannot be seen as a mere extension of the assessee’s existing unit-1. The Tribunal has discarded the Revenue’s contention that both the Units shared common amenities and common central excise registration and, therefore, cannot be seen as a separate industry, was rejected by the Tribunal. The assessee had presented full details of purchase of new plot, efforts made for obtaining separate excise registration for the new industry as well as for obtaining of a separate electric connection.  No question of law.(AY. 1999-2000)