Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

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

..... 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 filed the present appeal. 2. With the abo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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-Del)] 4. CCE, Meerut-II Vs. Prakash Straw Board P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 addition to the existing, but signifies something new brought-in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates