<?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>2015 (2) TMI 702 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256702</link>
    <description>An existing induction furnace unit under the compounded levy scheme may qualify for exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE where substantial expansion raises installed capacity by more than 25%. The material indicated that crucible capacity increased from 3 M.T. to 4.1 M.T., and the expansion was not negated merely because additional machinery was not separately emphasised; purchase records and tax authority entries supported the acquisition of components. A prior precedent treating modernization that results in a 25% or more increase in installed capacity as substantial expansion was relied on. On that basis, the exemption remained available and duty demand and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2015 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 702 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256702</link>
      <description>An existing induction furnace unit under the compounded levy scheme may qualify for exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE where substantial expansion raises installed capacity by more than 25%. The material indicated that crucible capacity increased from 3 M.T. to 4.1 M.T., and the expansion was not negated merely because additional machinery was not separately emphasised; purchase records and tax authority entries supported the acquisition of components. A prior precedent treating modernization that results in a 25% or more increase in installed capacity as substantial expansion was relied on. On that basis, the exemption remained available and duty demand and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>