2010 (12) TMI 491 - HC - Central Excise

Exemption - Increase in installed capacity - Substantial expansion - Additional investment in plant and machinery in modernization - In order to increase the capacity, respondent modified its existing furnace by increasing its length from 70 ft. to 120 ft. - The Board s Circular dated 21st January, 2004 must be read as a whole -while using the word additional plant and machinery , it was not insisted that the existing plant and machinery should remain - The said clarification, which also uses the words additional investment in plant and machinery in modernization , read with the other part of the Circular, makes it abundantly clear that the additional plant and machinery, mentioned therein, is not in addition to the existing, but signifies something new brought-in in the manufacturing process, which in turn, increases the capacity - Tribunal concluded that by making modification of the already existing machinery, since the installed capacity has been increased by-more than 25%, respondent was entitled to the benefits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "substantial expansion" under the Notification dated 10th June, 2003.
2. Entitlement to exemption under the Notification dated 7th January, 2003 read with the Notification dated 10th June, 2003.
3. Use of existing machinery vs. additional plant and machinery for capacity expansion.
4. Application of the Board's Circular dated 21st January, 2004 in determining substantial expansion.

Issue 1: Interpretation of "substantial expansion"
The case involved a dispute regarding the definition of "substantial expansion" under the Notification dated 10th June, 2003. The clarification issued on 21st January, 2004 emphasized that an increase in installed capacity by at least 25% should result from the installation of additional plant and machinery. The value of investment in plant and machinery was deemed not crucial as long as the increase in capacity met the specified criteria. The use of second-hand machinery for expansion was allowed, provided it increased the installed capacity by 25% or more.

Issue 2: Entitlement to exemption
The respondent was issued a notice by the Excise Department challenging their entitlement to exemption under the Notifications dated 7th January, 2003 and 10th June, 2003. The Tribunal confirmed that the respondent had increased its installed capacity by over 25% through modifications to existing machinery, such as lengthening the furnace and replacing the motor and gearbox. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, granting them the benefits under the government orders.

Issue 3: Use of existing machinery vs. additional plant and machinery
The Revenue contended that the respondent had modified existing machinery rather than using additional plant and machinery for capacity expansion. However, the Court emphasized that the Circular dated 21st January, 2004 required a factual increase of 25% capacity through the installation of additional plant and machinery. The Court clarified that the term "additional" did not necessarily mean completely new machinery, as modifications to existing equipment could also qualify as additional machinery as long as they contributed to capacity expansion.

Issue 4: Application of the Board's Circular
The Court analyzed the Board's Circular dated 21st January, 2004, which stressed the importance of factual capacity increase through the deployment of additional plant and machinery. The Circular did not mandate the retention of existing machinery, but rather required the introduction of new elements that enhanced capacity. The Court concluded that the respondent's actions, including modifying the furnace and replacing the motor and gearbox, aligned with the Circular's intent, making them eligible for the benefits under the government orders.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the respondent was entitled to exemption based on the substantial expansion achieved through modifications to existing machinery.