Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE was available on the basis of overall expansion of installed capacity, or whether the prescribed 25% increase had to be achieved separately in each segment of the factory.
Analysis: The exemption was claimed on the footing that the unit, already in existence in the notified area, had undergone substantial expansion by installing additional plant and machinery and by increasing installed capacity beyond 25%. The Board's circular clarified that the increase in installed capacity must result from installation of additional plant and machinery, and the Tribunal's earlier decision relied upon by the first appellate authority held that the relevant test is overall expansion of the manufacturing unit and not a compartment-wise increase in every section. The appellate authority had examined the production charts, machinery details, power increase, and other supporting records and found that the expansion requirement was met. No specific ground was raised in the revenue appeal to dislodge those factual findings.
Conclusion: The condition of substantial expansion was satisfied by overall expansion of the unit, and not by a separate 25% increase in each manufacturing segment. The revenue appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of the exemption, the prescribed increase in installed capacity is to be assessed with reference to the overall expansion of the manufacturing unit and not by insisting upon a separate increase in every section.