1997 (5) TMI 158 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Determining whether licensed capacity and installed capacity are synonymous or have different meanings under Project Import Regulations, 1986.

Analysis:
The case revolves around the interpretation of licensed capacity and installed capacity in the context of Project Import Regulations, 1986. The appellants sought permission to add new manufacturing activities to their existing operations and claimed the benefit of substantial expansion under the Project Import Regulations. The lower authorities equated installed capacity with licensed capacity, denying the appellants the benefit they sought.

The appellants argued that the balance sheet of the company clearly delineates licensed capacity, installed capacity, and actual production, as required under the Companies Act. They contended that the installed capacity, as certified by a Chartered Engineer, increased by over 25% due to the addition of new manufacturing activities, making them eligible for the benefits under the Project Import Regulations. The appellants relied on the absence of a specific definition of installed capacity in the Regulations and cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their interpretation.

The respondent, represented by the ld. DR, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, maintaining that installed capacity and licensed capacity were synonymous in this case.

Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal held that licensed capacity is distinct from installed capacity. They noted that the balance sheet of the appellant company annually indicated the installed capacity, licensed capacity, and actual production. Since the Project Import Regulations did not define installed capacity, the Tribunal relied on the detailed information required by the Companies Act, which clearly distinguished between licensed and installed capacity. The Tribunal observed that the expansion undertaken by the appellants increased production by 28%, meeting the threshold for substantial expansion under the Regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of concessional duty rates under the Project Import Regulations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarifies the distinction between licensed capacity and installed capacity, emphasizing the importance of accurate financial reporting in determining eligibility for benefits under regulatory frameworks like the Project Import Regulations, 1986.