9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Rectification of mistake in a revenue appeal regarding eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 20/99 for an integrated machine consisting of cone type plant and jaw crusher.
In this case, the Revenue filed an application for rectification of mistake against a final order dismissing their appeal regarding the eligibility of an integrated machine for exemption under Notification No. 20/99. The Tribunal had upheld the impugned order granting partial benefit of the notification to the respondent. The Revenue contended that the integrated machine, including a cone type plant and jaw crusher, should not be considered eligible for the exemption. They argued that the Ministry of Surface Transport's certificate only covered the cone type crushing plant, not the jaw crushing plant, and therefore, the entire machinery should not receive the benefit of the notification. However, the Tribunal found no mistake in their order, as the Revenue's grounds of appeal primarily challenged the eligibility based on the integrated machine not being solely a cone type crusher. Despite the Tribunal's opinion that the benefit should extend to the entire plant and machinery, since there was no appeal or cross-objection by the respondent against the part of the machinery being ineligible for the benefit, the impugned order was upheld, granting partial benefit to the respondent. The Tribunal emphasized that the subsequent certificate from the Ministry of Surface Transport, along with an expert's certificate, supported the eligibility of the integrated machine for the exemption. The Revenue's argument focused on the machine not meeting the criteria of a cone type crusher as per the notification. The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented, which led them to conclude that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The order highlighted the importance of considering the entire assembly as a stone crushing cone type plant, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake. Overall, the judgment delved into the specifics of the machinery in question, the certificates provided, and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal's analysis centered on the interpretation of the exemption notification, the nature of the integrated machine, and the certificates from relevant authorities. By thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order correctly granted partial benefit of the notification to the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake.
|
