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

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2004 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (3) TMI 457 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E. availability to goods manufactured by M/s. International Pumps & Projects Ltd.

Analysis:
The issue in this appeal revolves around the availability of the benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E. to the goods manufactured by M/s. International Pumps & Projects Ltd. The Respondents were discharging duty liability at the full rate from the beginning of the financial year 1998-99, not availing SSI Exemption under other notifications. They opted for availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/98 by submitting a letter on 9-6-98. The Revenue argued that the Respondents cannot claim exemption from 9-8-98 as per condition No. 2(1) of the notification. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that since the Respondents had filed an option for the notification, they had not breached any provisions of the Central Excise Law.

Upon considering the submissions, it was noted that as per Paragraph 2(1) of Notification No. 9/98, the exemption applies when a manufacturer opts for it in writing before effecting the first clearance in the year 1998-99. The Respondents had indeed exercised this option by their letter received on 9-6-98. The condition specified that once the option is exercised, it cannot be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year. The Revenue's argument that the Respondents should opt out of the notification after opting in was deemed impermissible. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly concluded that since the Respondents had opted for the benefit of the notification, they were not in violation of any Central Excise Law provisions. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, upholding the decision in favor of the Respondents.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates