<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (5) TMI 258 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77855</link>
    <description>Replacement of an existing furnace with a higher-capacity furnace can qualify as &quot;substantial expansion&quot; under Notification No. 50/2003-CE if it results in at least a 25% increase in installed capacity. The governing test is the actual increase in installed capacity, even though the Board&#039;s circular indicates that such increase should ordinarily arise from additional plant and machinery. A replacement that raised capacity from 4 MT to 6 MT, a 50% increase, satisfied the notification. The Tribunal distinguished customs project-import decisions relied on by the Department because they addressed different statutory language and context. The exemption was therefore available and the related denial of benefit, duty, interest, and penalties could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 258 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77855</link>
      <description>Replacement of an existing furnace with a higher-capacity furnace can qualify as &quot;substantial expansion&quot; under Notification No. 50/2003-CE if it results in at least a 25% increase in installed capacity. The governing test is the actual increase in installed capacity, even though the Board&#039;s circular indicates that such increase should ordinarily arise from additional plant and machinery. A replacement that raised capacity from 4 MT to 6 MT, a 50% increase, satisfied the notification. The Tribunal distinguished customs project-import decisions relied on by the Department because they addressed different statutory language and context. The exemption was therefore available and the related denial of benefit, duty, interest, and penalties could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>