2019 (5) TMI 1785

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent : Shri Tarun Kumar, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the benefit of Notification No.01/10 dt.6.2.2010 has been denied. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic enamel and acrylic emulsion and the appellant was located in the State Jammu and Kashmir and availing the benefit of No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant unit had substantially expanded by 26.84%. The said order was challenged by the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant has invested is Rs. 161.13 lakhs resulting total expansion of 24.46%. Therefore, there is shortfall by Rs. 3.56 lakhs and the benefit of exemption notification is not available to the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, we find that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced certain amount towards expansion on certain machinery and plant, one such machine is HSD machine is nothing but a grinder and the same is part of plant and machinery. Photograph of the said machine is extracted below:- 7. On going through the photograph of machine produced before us, we find that the same is part of pla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X