1994 (1) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s factory ilmenite is reacted with sulphuric acid. For this purpose the Appellant requires continuous supply of large quantities of sulphuric acid and the Appellant had accordingly installed 3 plants for the manufacture of sulphuric acid out of sulphur. Two of the plants were 50 tonnes per day (tpd) and the other plant was a 300 tpd plant. The first 50 tpd acid plant was put in 1961 and the second 50 tpd plant was put up in 1964. In connection with the substantial expansion of the titanium dioxide production a new 300 tpd sulphuric acid plant was commissioned in 1973 by the Appellant. (ii)     All the above mentioned sulphuric acid plants were the conventional single absorption type. In a 300 tpd single absorption H2S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed upon increase in capacity due to the conversion as aforesaid of the 300 tpd plant to DCDA type. Since the increased capacity on conversion to DCDA type was within the overall limit of 25% of the aggregate licensed capacity for H2SO4 amounting to 1,08,000 tonnes per annum of the appellant, no fresh project licence was found necessary by the Department of Industries of the Government of India. However, the Appellant's application for import of the required imported components was recommended by DGTD and import licence was issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. (iv)    The appellant through FEDO applied to the Assistant Collector for registration of their contract under Project Import (Registration of Contr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lacement of the DCDA plant having capacity of 450 tpd in lieu of the existing 300 tpd plant means a substantial expansion. Recommendation for the benefit was made by DGTD which led to the endorsement of the licence by the CCI&E for benefit of project import. Learned advocate has relied upon 1984 (17) E.L.T. 525 [Collector of Customs v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.]. 4. Learned SDR for the Revenue opposing the contention of the learned advocate, has urged that the issue is no longer res integra - scope of the expression 'substantial expansion of an existing unit' having been explained in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 153 [National Newsprint & Paper Mills v. C.C., Bombay]. He draws attention to the views of the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal i....