https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446835 Exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 33/99 required a genuine substantial expansion increasing installed capacity by at least 25%. The claimed increase was rejected because the ECP dryer had already existed before expansion and should have been counted in the original capacity, while the appellant also took inconsistent positions on its use and accepted 21.04.2000 as the effective date of increase. On this factual material, the post-expansion increase was held to be only about 4%, so the statutory threshold was not met and exemption was denied. en-us Fri, 01 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2023 07:53:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446835 Exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 33/99 required a genuine substantial expansion increasing installed capacity by at least 25%. The claimed increase was rejected because the ECP dryer had already existed before expansion and should have been counted in the original capacity, while the appellant also took inconsistent positions on its use and accepted 21.04.2000 as the effective date of increase. On this factual material, the post-expansion increase was held to be only about 4%, so the statutory threshold was not met and exemption was denied. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446835