https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204894 The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent's entitlement to exemption under the government orders. The dispute centered on the definition of "substantial expansion" and the use of existing machinery for capacity increase. The Court clarified that modifications to existing equipment, such as lengthening the furnace and replacing the motor and gearbox, could qualify as additional machinery if they resulted in a factual increase of at least 25% in installed capacity. Consequently, the respondent was deemed eligible for exemption benefits based on the capacity expansion achieved through modifications to existing machinery. en-us Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204894 The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent's entitlement to exemption under the government orders. The dispute centered on the definition of "substantial expansion" and the use of existing machinery for capacity increase. The Court clarified that modifications to existing equipment, such as lengthening the furnace and replacing the motor and gearbox, could qualify as additional machinery if they resulted in a factual increase of at least 25% in installed capacity. Consequently, the respondent was deemed eligible for exemption benefits based on the capacity expansion achieved through modifications to existing machinery. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204894