https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363892 Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE had to be tested on substantial expansion of installed capacity, not on actual production. The authority rejected the claim on the wrong criterion and did not establish that the chartered engineer's certificate was inadmissible. The earlier remand direction for cross-examination of the expert could not be fully implemented because the expert had died, and no further directions were sought from the Tribunal. On that basis, the impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside, with consequential relief in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:43:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363892 Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE had to be tested on substantial expansion of installed capacity, not on actual production. The authority rejected the claim on the wrong criterion and did not establish that the chartered engineer's certificate was inadmissible. The earlier remand direction for cross-examination of the expert could not be fully implemented because the expert had died, and no further directions were sought from the Tribunal. On that basis, the impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside, with consequential relief in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363892