TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Area-based exemption covers both capacity expansion and product diversification under Notification 01/10-CE para 8(b)(i)</h1> <h3>CCE & ST, Jammu & Kashmir Versus Pee Ell Alloys Pvt Ltd</h3> CCE & ST, Jammu & Kashmir Versus Pee Ell Alloys Pvt Ltd - TMI Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of department's appeal and upholding of Order-In-Original by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 6.2.2010 for expansion of manufacturing unit.Summary:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order rejecting the department's appeal and upholding the Order-In-Original. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing Ferro Silicon, Calcium Carbide, and Ferro Chrome, sought to avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 6.2.2010 after expanding their unit by more than 25% of the existing value of plant & machinery. The adjudicating authority accepted the expansion, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The appellant argued that the impugned order did not properly interpret the exemption notification and that the respondent was not entitled to its benefits. They contended that the case was not about capacity expansion but about replacing an existing product with a new one. However, the respondent and the authorities below maintained that the respondent met the criteria for the notification's benefits, as the expansion was in line with the notification's provisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the notification did not restrict the expansion to the installed capacity of the existing product only. The respondent had shifted from manufacturing Calcium Carbide to Ferro Chrome, satisfying the notification's requirements. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the notification should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer if they fall within its plain terms, citing relevant case law. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross objections were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 