2017 (6) TMI 757 - AT - Central Excise

Increase in installed capacity - benefit of N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - denial on the ground that the installed capacity has been increased more than 25%, therefore, they are entitled for benefit of exemption N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, as the respondent is located in the state of Jammu & Kashmir - Held that - Board s Circular No. 772/5/2004-CX dated 21.01.2014 states that as substantial expansion is defined in terms of increase in installed capacity by 25% or more, value of investment in plant and machinery is not the criteria to define substantial expansion - the respondents have undertaken substantial expansion that resulted in the increase in installed capacity by more than 25% - benefit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues:
- Appeal against granting benefit of exemption under Notification No.56/2002-CE
- Dispute over substantial expansion claim for increased installed capacity
- Interpretation of substantial expansion under Notification No.56/2002-CE

Analysis:
1. Issue 1: Appeal against granting benefit of exemption under Notification No.56/2002-CE
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Ld. Commissioner (A) granting the benefit of exemption under Notification No.56/2002-CE to the respondent, who claimed the benefit due to an increase in installed capacity exceeding 25%. The Revenue contended that the respondent did not meet the criteria for the exemption as their installed capacity had not been extended by more than 25%.

2. Issue 2: Dispute over substantial expansion claim for increased installed capacity
The Ld. AR for the Revenue argued that the respondent's claim of substantial expansion was not valid, specifically challenging the installation date of the Eddy Current Clutch Machine in 2004. The Revenue relied on circulars and precedents to support their argument that the expansion was not substantial and that the installed capacity had not increased as claimed by the respondent.

3. Issue 3: Interpretation of substantial expansion under Notification No.56/2002-CE
The Ld. Commissioner (A) analyzed the issue of substantial expansion in detail, emphasizing that the intention of the legislature was to grant exemption to existing units undertaking substantial expansion resulting in an increase in installed capacity by not less than 25%. The Commissioner differentiated between setting up a new unit and expanding an existing one, focusing on the increase in installed capacity. The Commissioner referred to relevant circulars and highlighted the respondent's documented increase in production capacity, concluding that the expansion was substantial and met the criteria for exemption.

4. The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and arguments presented, found that the respondent had indeed increased their installed capacity significantly by adding new equipment and production lines, leading to a clear enhancement in production capabilities. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence to refute the respondent's claims of increased capacity, thereby upholding the findings of the adjudicating authority and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

5. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (A), stating that the case laws cited by the Revenue were not relevant to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the impugned order granting the benefit of exemption under Notification No.56/2002-CE to the respondent was upheld, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of the appeal, the arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of substantial expansion under the relevant notification, and the final decision of the Tribunal based on the evidence and legal principles discussed during the proceedings.

← Previous Next →