2017 (10) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication No.49/2003 dated 10.6.03. The assessee claimed benefit of above notification on account of substantial expansion of unit carried out. It is the claim of the assessee that by means of carrying out changes in factory, the installed capacity of plant was increased from 50TPD to 65TPD which amounts to more than 25% increase in installed capacity. After investigating into the claim for substantial expansion, the original authority denied the benefit of area based exemption notification and demanded payment of Customs duty to the extent of Rs. 5,59,24,239/-. However, when the issue was carried to the Commissioner (Appeals), he set aside the demand and allowed the benefit of area based exemption. Aggrieved by the decision, Revenue has fil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He argued that it has been certified by the independent Chartered Engineer as well as by Professor from IIT Roorki, DPT Saharanpur that the installed capacity of the assessee unit has, infact been increased by over 25%. He further argued that even if such increase in capacity is a result of replacement of installed machinery and alteration in existing machinery, benefit will be available to the respondent. 5. The respondent has also relied upon several case laws in support of their claim : 1. CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Bhandari Deepak Industries P. Ltd. [2015 (318) ELT 677 (Tri-Del)] 2. CC Vs. Uttaranchal Iron and Ispat Ltd. [2011 (266) ELT 331 (Uttarakhand) 3. Him Engineers India (P) Ltd. Vs CCE, Chandigarh [2016 (332) ELT 872 (Tri-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ery meant for improvement in quality of products. 7. After going through various case laws we note that Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand has examined a similar issue in the case of Commissioner Vs. Uttaranchal Iron and Ispat Ltd. (supra) in which the CBEC circular dated 21.1.2004 was also considered. The Hon'ble High Court has observed as follows: The Circular nowhere says that such machinery, in order to be additional machinery, should be in addition to those, which are in existence. The said clarification, which also uses the words "additional investment in plant and machinery in modernization", read with the other part of the Circular, makes it abundantly clear that the additional plant and machinery, mentioned therein, is not in ....