https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122863 Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. depended on proof of the prescribed 25% increase in installed capacity. The Tribunal considered certificates from the District Industries Centre and a Chartered Engineer, together with the Revenue's technical explanation on the production-capacity formula, and held that the finding of no requisite capacity expansion was unsustainable on that record. The denial of exemption on the ground of absence of the required expansion could not be maintained, and recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeals. en-us Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:56:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122863 Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. depended on proof of the prescribed 25% increase in installed capacity. The Tribunal considered certificates from the District Industries Centre and a Chartered Engineer, together with the Revenue's technical explanation on the production-capacity formula, and held that the finding of no requisite capacity expansion was unsustainable on that record. The denial of exemption on the ground of absence of the required expansion could not be maintained, and recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122863