Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2008 (8) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Arvind Baheti, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The Respondents were alleged not to have achieved the desired expansion of 25% in terms of Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999. The Jurisdictional Commissioner has decided the case after hearing the respondents and taking into consideration all aspects of the case, he has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Shillong v. M/s. Hatikuli Tea Estate in which under our order No. A-552/Kol/08, dated 12-5-08 [2008 (230) E.L.T. 497 (T)], we have held that if the installed capacity of the section having the lowest capacity has been increased to the desired extent of 25%, a unit would be considered to have achieved the expansion in ter....