1997 (5) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....struts. They wanted to add bottom case and front forks to their manufacturing activities and accordingly applied to DGTD for according permission. Simultaneously they requested the Customs authorities to extend to them the benefit of project import in terms of Clause (b) of regulation of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 claiming that the import was for expansion. The lower authorities held that installed capacity is nothing but the licensed capacity and since the licensed capacity of the appellants was twenty lakh pieces and the addition of the new facility to manufacture bottom cases and front forks will not make any addition to the licensed capacity, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of `substantial expansion'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....akh, seventy five thousand pieces for the year 1992-93. He submits that this addition increased the installed capacity by about 28 per cent. He submits that Regulation 3(b) of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 stipulates that an expansion which increases the installed capacity by not less than 25 per cent will be termed as `substantial expansion'. He submits that since the capacity of the manufacturing activity of the company went up by more than 25 per cent, therefore, the company was entitled to the benefit of Project Import Regulations. The ld. Counsel submitted that Project Import Regulations nowhere define the term `installed capacity'. He submits that since Companies Act required that installed capacity is to be indicated, the comp....