9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (4) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Appeal against denial of benefit under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. due to availing benefit under Notifications No. 8/98-C.E. and 9/98-C.E. Analysis: The appellants contested the denial of benefits under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing their availing of benefits under Notifications No. 8/98-C.E. and 9/98-C.E. The appellants argued that as per Condition No. 15 of Notification No. 5/99-C.E., the exemption does not apply to a manufacturer benefiting from Notifications No. 8/98-C.E. and 9/98-C.E. The Revenue, however, contended that if a manufacturer benefits from either Notification No. 8/98-C.E. or 9/98-C.E., the benefits under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. are not accessible. The Revenue emphasized that under Notification No. 9/98-C.E., a manufacturer cannot switch to benefiting from Notification No. 8/98-C.E. during the financial year. They argued that since both notifications pertain to small-scale exemptions, a manufacturer can only avail benefits under one notification. Condition No. 15 of Notification No. 5/99-C.E. further supports this stance by stating that the benefit is for manufacturers claiming benefits under Notifications No. 8/98-C.E. or 9/98-C.E. The Tribunal found that the appellants were indeed benefiting from Notification No. 9/98-C.E. in the same financial year. The Tribunal noted that under Notification No. 9/98-C.E., a manufacturer cannot simultaneously avail benefits under Notification No. 8/98-C.E. In light of these provisions, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that Notification No. 5/99-C.E. can only be denied if a manufacturer benefits from both Notification No. 8/98-C.E. and 9/98-C.E. Since the appellants were benefiting from Notification No. 9/98-C.E., the denial of benefits under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. was deemed appropriate. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' contentions, and upheld the denial of benefits under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. as the appellants were already benefiting from Notification No. 9/98-C.E.
|
