<?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>2019 (8) TMI 1515 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289296</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE was available where the facts showed substantial expansion of installed capacity for the specified goods. The manufactured product remained unchanged whether produced by the single-layer or multi-layer machine, and both were classified under the same tariff heading. The record also showed enhanced production capacity through installation of additional machinery, supported by certificates from other authorities confirming an increase in annual production capacity. Circular No. 912/02/2010-CX was applied consistently with this position, clarifying that exemption depends on substantial expansion in the capacity of the specified goods. On those facts, the appellant was held eligible for the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:00:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1515 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289296</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 32/99-CE was available where the facts showed substantial expansion of installed capacity for the specified goods. The manufactured product remained unchanged whether produced by the single-layer or multi-layer machine, and both were classified under the same tariff heading. The record also showed enhanced production capacity through installation of additional machinery, supported by certificates from other authorities confirming an increase in annual production capacity. Circular No. 912/02/2010-CX was applied consistently with this position, clarifying that exemption depends on substantial expansion in the capacity of the specified goods. On those facts, the appellant was held eligible for the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>