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 - 2006 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2006 (7) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Exemption availed by Spinning Mills under various Notifications issued, Compliance with conditions of Notifications, Sale of yarn to Apex bodies, Payment by cheque, Allegations of sales to traders, Production of certificate for handloom use, Expert opinion on yarn suitability, Onus of ensuring actual use in handloom industry, Benefit of exemption notification, Imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata dealt with the issue of exemption availed by Spinning Mills under various Notifications. The dispute revolved around the conditions stipulated in the Notifications, requiring the sale of yarn to specific Apex bodies and payment by cheque from their own accounts. The Tribunal noted that the yarn manufactured by the Spinning Mills was sold to Tantuja and Tantusree, Apex bodies established by the State Government, which met the criteria of the Notifications. The Commissioner alleged that the sales were made to traders, not directly to the Apex bodies, but the Tribunal found that the goods were indeed purchased by the Apex bodies for further distribution. The presence of traders in meetings did not negate the transactions' legitimacy.

Regarding the production of a certificate for handloom use, the Tribunal found that the Spinning Mills had complied by providing certificates from relevant authorities. The Commissioner's doubts about the authenticity of the certificates were dismissed, as no evidence to the contrary was presented. Expert opinions were also considered, supporting the suitability of the yarn for the handloom industry. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the alleged use of yarn in powerloom rested with the revenue, which failed to provide evidence.

The Tribunal addressed the issue of onus in ensuring actual use in the handloom industry. It was established that the Apex bodies, Tantuja and Tantusree, were responsible for fair distribution to handloom weavers. The Tribunal clarified that no end-use certificate from actual users was required by the Notifications, and the certificates issued by the Apex bodies sufficed. The concept of "for use" was interpreted as "intended to be used," absolving the Spinning Mills from proving actual use.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and granting them the benefit of the exemption notification. Penalties were not imposed on the manufacturing units or the Apex bodies. The impugned orders were set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment did not delve into the limitation plea due to the favorable decision on merits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates