9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er notification no. 50/03 CE dated 10/6/2003 w.e.f. 7/11/2005. The basis of the claim is that there has been a substantial expansion of their installed capacity by more than 25 per cent. 2. After certain verifications, the Department sought to deny the exemption as claimed by the appellant. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated resulting in order dated 28/11/2006. The Assistant Commissioner held that the appellant is not eligible for the said concession as they could not establish the fact of substantial expansion of more than 25 per cent. On appeal, the Commissioner (appeals) vide his order dated 25/5/2007 upheld this original order. The appellant filed appeal no. E/2340/2007 with the Tribunal. 3. Later, proceedings were initiated agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inery added were one compressor, two senders and three welding machines and one 300 MT Hydraulic double action press. ii) The certificate for expanded capacity was issued by the District Industries Authorities after expert assessment report dated 28/10/2005. The installed capacity after expansion was 12000 pieces of bonnet Assembly. iii) The above facts were brought to the notice to the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise, Shimla vide declaration dated 31/10/2005. Further, vide letter dated 9/1/2006, the Range Officer was informed about the process flow details, details of machinery installed prayer to and after 7/1/2003. iv) The proceedings against the appellant both for denial of the exemption and for confirming the demands consequent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is well documented and was certified by the District Industries Authorities after due verification by the expert committee. Regarding doubt raised by the Revenue that the expanded capacity is only in respect of one item, the matter was referred by the Commissioner (appeals) to the District Industries Centre. The Deputy Director of Industries vide his letter dated 17/2/2009 categorically stated on the various parameters and reported the revised capacity of the unit after substantial expansion w.e.f. 26/1/2005 was above 25% of bonnet assembly consisting of 52 part of sheet metal for tractors. This clarification will settle the matter clearly. 7. The ld. AR, Shri Nanthuk, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and stated that many ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Uttrakhand held that in the case of replacement of existing plant and machinery with new plant and machinery with increased installed capacity of more than 25%, the same will be within the scope of exemption notification. The same view was taken by the same Hon'bie High Court in the case of Uttranchal Iron and Ispat Limited 2011 (266) ELT 331 (Uttrakhand). Considering the above position, we find that the expansion of installed capacity can happen either by addition or by part or full replacement of existing machinery. 10. Regarding the Revenue's view that enhanced capacity is only relating to one product and not all products manufactured by the appellant, we find that from the letter dated 17/2/2009 issued by the Deputy Director o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
