1996 (11) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Moreover, the margin between the total amount of investment in the present case and the permissible limit of Rs. 20 lakhs specified in rule 3(66) is considerable, so that a bare assertion of this kind is alone not sufficient to reject the appellant’s claim. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to grant of the eligibility certificate as claimed by it. - Civil Appeal No. 14829 of 1996, - - - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lied to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for grant of eligibility certificate under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 read with section 4AA of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. The application for eligibility certificate was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated April 29, 1981 specifying the grounds of rejection. 2.. The appellant challenged the abov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the eligibility certificate. The Tribunal took the view that the expression connotes purchase or capital expenditure on purchase and that expenditure on lease is not investment, nor is it an expenditure of capital nature. From the additional material produced by the appellant before the Tribunal which remained unrebutted, it is clear that the total investment on plant and machinery of the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X