2014 (10) TMI 937 - AT - Central Excise

Substantial expansion of the installed capacity - benefit of N/N. 49/2003-C.E. & 50/2003-C.E - case of Revenue is that there was no expansion in the capacity of veneer lathe machine section of the appellants factory and therefore their capacity to produce veneer had not been increased and veneers are captively consumed for manufacture of their final product - Held that - The letter of Indian Plywood Industries Research & Training Institute stating that for ascertaining the installed capacity of a plywood factory, the hot press capacity alone is considered as the guiding factor - there is no dispute that the veneer producing capacity has not been increased. At the same time it is also not in dispute that with the increase in the capacity of the hot press section their capacity to produce their final product expanded by more than 25% - reliance placed in the case of CCE, Dibrugarh v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 2005 (1) TMI 504 - CESTAT, KOLKATA , where it was held that The language in the Notification requires substantial expansion in industrial unit and the expansion is not with reference to any individual section of the unit or machinery in the unit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification Nos. 49/2003-C.E. & 50/2003-C.E.
- Eligibility for benefit based on capacity expansion
- Consideration of hot press capacity alone for ascertaining installed capacity
- Outsourcing of veneer requirement
- Precedents set by CESTAT in similar cases

Interpretation of Notification Nos. 49/2003-C.E. & 50/2003-C.E.:
The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal regarding the benefit of Notification Nos. 49/2003-C.E. & 50/2003-C.E. The issue revolved around whether the respondents qualified for the benefit due to substantial expansion of installed capacity by not less than 25% during the permitted period. The dispute arose from the fact that while the veneer machines' capacity had not increased by 25%, the capacity to produce the final product (plywood) had expanded by more than 25% with the addition to the hot press capacity.

Eligibility for benefit based on capacity expansion:
The revenue contended that since there was no expansion in the veneer lathe machine section's capacity, the respondents were not eligible for the benefit as their capacity to produce veneer had not increased by more than 25%. However, the appellate authority supported the benefit claim based on the increase in the capacity of the hot press section, leading to a significant expansion in the production capacity of the final product.

Consideration of hot press capacity alone for ascertaining installed capacity:
The respondents presented a letter from the Indian Plywood Industries Research & Training Institute stating that for determining a plywood factory's installed capacity, the hot press capacity alone should be considered. This letter supported the respondents' argument that the substantial increase in the hot press capacity justified their eligibility for the benefit, even if the veneer producing capacity remained unchanged.

Outsourcing of veneer requirement:
The letter from the Indian Plywood Industries Research & Training Institute also mentioned that plywood factories could outsource the veneer requirement, further strengthening the respondents' position regarding the capacity expansion criteria for availing the benefit under the notifications.

Precedents set by CESTAT in similar cases:
The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including CCE v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages and CCE v. MKB (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that substantial expansion in an industrial unit, as required by the Notification, did not pertain to individual sections or machinery but to the unit as a whole. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, concluding that the increase in the final product capacity by more than 25% due to the hot press expansion justified the respondents' eligibility for the benefit.