<?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>2014 (2) TMI 397 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243800</link>
    <description>Notification No. 50/2003-CE exemption was available where the unit demonstrated substantial expansion through installation of additional machinery and equipment. The record showed new melting tanks, melting furnaces, settling tanks and a steam boiler, with installed capacity increasing by about 65%. The presence of some existing kettles of the same size did not defeat the claim, because the relevant test was whether installed capacity had in fact been enhanced by fresh investment and machinery, not whether every component of the plant changed. A mere process improvement without new machinery would not satisfy the condition, but that was not the factual position here.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 397 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243800</link>
      <description>Notification No. 50/2003-CE exemption was available where the unit demonstrated substantial expansion through installation of additional machinery and equipment. The record showed new melting tanks, melting furnaces, settling tanks and a steam boiler, with installed capacity increasing by about 65%. The presence of some existing kettles of the same size did not defeat the claim, because the relevant test was whether installed capacity had in fact been enhanced by fresh investment and machinery, not whether every component of the plant changed. A mere process improvement without new machinery would not satisfy the condition, but that was not the factual position here.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243800</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>