9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (9) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2002 regarding simultaneous availment of exemptions under Sl. No. 86 and 86A in the same financial year. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the simultaneous availment of benefits under Sl. No. 86 and 86A of Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002 in the same financial year. Sl. No. 86 provided a clearance-based exemption up to 3,500 MT of production, beyond which a tariff rate of 16% would be applicable. On the other hand, Sl. No. 86A offered an exemption by fixing the effective rate at 12%, irrespective of the quantity of clearance. The appellants had crossed the 3,500 MT limit and availed exemption under Sl. No. 86A, which was challenged by the Department, arguing that the notifications were mutually exclusive, and both exemptions could not be claimed in the same financial year. The learned Counsel representing the appellants contended that there was no explicit prohibition in the notification against availing exemptions under both Sl. No. 86 and 86A in the same financial year. The Commissioner (Appeal) had interpreted the notification to impose such a restriction, which, according to the Counsel, was beyond the terms of the notification itself. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal examined the terms of the notification and found no explicit bar on availing exemptions under both Sl. No. 86 and 86A concurrently in the same financial year. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had a strong prima facie case in their favor based on the notification's language. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a stay application by waiving the pre-deposit of the duty amount and suspending its recovery until the appeal's final disposal. The appeal was scheduled for a final hearing in due course. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of any specific prohibition in the notification against simultaneously availing exemptions under Sl. No. 86 and 86A in the same financial year, leading to a favorable ruling for the appellants in this case.
|
