https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271621 CESTAT New Delhi held that eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE depended on whether the unit had achieved substantial expansion of installed capacity by 25% or more. On the evidence from the District Industries Authorities and the Deputy Director of Industries, the revised capacity was found to exceed that threshold, so the exemption was available. The objection that replacing a hydraulic press could not constitute expansion was rejected because substantial expansion may result from addition as well as replacement of machinery. The further objection that only one component had expanded was also rejected, as the record showed enhancement of the overall bonnet assembly. en-us Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 May 2016 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271621 CESTAT New Delhi held that eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE depended on whether the unit had achieved substantial expansion of installed capacity by 25% or more. On the evidence from the District Industries Authorities and the Deputy Director of Industries, the revised capacity was found to exceed that threshold, so the exemption was available. The objection that replacing a hydraulic press could not constitute expansion was rejected because substantial expansion may result from addition as well as replacement of machinery. The further objection that only one component had expanded was also rejected, as the record showed enhancement of the overall bonnet assembly. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271621