Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Commr. Of C. Ex. vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. on 20 January, 2005
ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, extending the benefit of Notification No. 33/99-C.E. to the respondents herein, who are engaged in the manufacture of Aerated Waters, on the ground that there has been a substantial expansion by way of increase in the installed capacity of their industrial unit of not less than 25%. According to the Department, the report relied upon by the respondents herein, which was accepted by the Commissioner for extending the benefit of the Notification, namely report of M/s. Price Water-house Cooper (P) Ltd., shows that critical machineries to determine the installed capacity in an aerated water bottling plant, are bottle washer and filler. There had been no expansion in installed capacity, as the capacity of critical machineries remained the same during the pre and post-expansion period. Therefore, even if there had been an increase in other sections, such increase in non-vital sections would not be sufficient to hold that there is sufficient expansion to the tune of more than 25% for making the respondents eligible for coverage under the Notification.
2. On hearing both sides, we find that the report relied upon by the Commissioner, clearly shows in detail that there has been a substantial expansion of the industrial unit. The language in the Notification requires substantial expansion in industrial unit and the expansion is not with reference to any individual section of the unit or machinery in the unit.
3. Our view is further supported by the Tribunal's Order in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages reported in 2004 (169) E.L.T. 152 (Tribunal - Kol.), which in turn relies upon the earlier Order of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong v. Dorria Tea Estate reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 999 (Tri. - Kol). In these circumstances, we hold that there is no infirmity in the impugned Order and accordingly, uphold the same and reject the appeal, after allowing the application for bringing on record the documents which were already part of the records before the Commissioner of Central Excise.