<?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>2004 (2) TMI 493 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111432</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE was upheld where the assessee established an overall increase of installed capacity through supporting certificates and manufacturing flow material. The variance between the Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate and the Directorate of Industries certificate was explained by different bottleneck-based measurements in the production process, and the notification did not require every individual section of the unit to increase by the prescribed percentage. The relevant test was whether total installed capacity had increased to the threshold level, which was satisfied, so the exemption benefit was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:06:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 493 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111432</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE was upheld where the assessee established an overall increase of installed capacity through supporting certificates and manufacturing flow material. The variance between the Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate and the Directorate of Industries certificate was explained by different bottleneck-based measurements in the production process, and the notification did not require every individual section of the unit to increase by the prescribed percentage. The relevant test was whether total installed capacity had increased to the threshold level, which was satisfied, so the exemption benefit was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>