<?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>2008 (12) TMI 599 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125745</link>
    <description>Notification No. 50/03-C.E. exempts existing industrial units in specified areas if they undertake substantial expansion by increasing installed capacity by at least 25% after 7-1-03 and begin production from the expanded capacity within the stipulated period. The Board&#039;s circular clarifies that substantial expansion may be shown by installation of additional plant and machinery, and the amount of investment is not decisive if that result is achieved. On the record, the unit&#039;s capacity was certified as increasing from 3 MT to 4 MT, and the absence of check-post entries for capital goods was considered insufficient by itself to negate receipt of goods where no supplier inquiry had been made and other material supported the capacity increase. The appellants therefore established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:39:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 599 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125745</link>
      <description>Notification No. 50/03-C.E. exempts existing industrial units in specified areas if they undertake substantial expansion by increasing installed capacity by at least 25% after 7-1-03 and begin production from the expanded capacity within the stipulated period. The Board&#039;s circular clarifies that substantial expansion may be shown by installation of additional plant and machinery, and the amount of investment is not decisive if that result is achieved. On the record, the unit&#039;s capacity was certified as increasing from 3 MT to 4 MT, and the absence of check-post entries for capital goods was considered insufficient by itself to negate receipt of goods where no supplier inquiry had been made and other material supported the capacity increase. The appellants therefore established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>