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 - 2003 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (12) TMI 564 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Duty exemption under Notification 88/88 for detergent washing powder manufacturing.
2. Recognition of the appellant's unit by Khadi and Village Industries Commission.
3. Validity of subsequent correspondence to establish recognition.
4. Commissioner's decision on duty exemption eligibility.

Issue 1:
The case involved the appellant, a detergent washing powder manufacturer, claiming duty exemption under Notification 88/88. The appellant argued that the exemption applied as the product was manufactured by institutions in rural areas recognized by specific bodies. The Commissioner demanded duty, stating that the appellant's unit did not meet the recognition criteria specified in the notification.

Issue 2:
The certificate issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commissioner indicated that the appellant's unit was not recognized as part of the Pratishtan. The appellant contended that recognition was required for institutions, not specific units. However, the format of the certificate showed recognition was unit-specific, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's unit was not accorded recognition.

Issue 3:
The appellant relied on subsequent correspondence to prove recognition, including a letter from the Gujarat Rajya Khadi Gramudyog Board granting permission for the detergent unit. However, further investigation revealed that the certificates were issued after the duty demand notice, and a letter from the Board indicated no recognition for the appellant's unit.

Issue 4:
The Commissioner's decision to deny the duty exemption was upheld as the subsequent correspondence did not override the earlier statements indicating lack of recognition. The appellant's admission of non-recognition by State or Central Organizations further supported the denial of the exemption. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision on duty exemption eligibility.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates