Substantial expansion exemption upheld where official records showed increased installed capacity and no section-wise expansion requirement applied.

Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE was upheld on the basis of substantial expansion by at least 25% in installed capacity after 07.01.2003. The unit had applied for expansion, installed new machinery, replaced the digester, and was inspected by the Directorate of Industries before and after completion. The official letter recorded capacity increases in both semi craft paper and corrugated boxes, with additional investment, and the Revenue did not dispute that record. The claim that corrugated boxes capacity had not increased was rejected, and it was further clarified that expansion need not occur in every section of the plant or only through fresh machinery in every part of the unit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE on the basis of substantial expansion by not less than 25% in installed capacity after 07.01.2003.

Analysis: The respondent had applied for expansion, furnished details of new machinery and replacement of the digester, and the Directorate of Industries inspected the unit before and after completion of the work. The Directorate's letter dated 02.01.2004 recorded that the installed capacity had increased from 7200 MT to 9000 MT per annum for semi craft paper and from 1200 MT to 1800 MT per annum for corrugated boxes, along with additional investment. The Revenue did not dispute the inspection record or the authenticity of that letter. The claim that there was no increase in capacity for corrugated boxes was rejected because the official record itself showed enhancement in that product as well. It was also held that, for the exemption, expansion need not occur in every section of the plant and the increase need not be achieved only by addition of fresh plant and machinery in every part of the unit.

Conclusion: The respondent satisfied the requirement of substantial expansion and was entitled to the exemption. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---