9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the other hand, within the same financial year, even for different periods, by pressing into service one of the notifications - Held that:- The period in question in the instant case is 15.03.1995 to 31.03.1995. This is obviously subsequent to the publication of Notification No.22/95. Notification No.22/95 became operational at the end of the financial year 1994-95. Though the record is not that clear, it appears that for the substantial part of the financial year 1994-95, the respondent availed the benefit under both the notifications till Notification No.22/95 came into force, but with effect from the date on which it came into force, it availed the benefit under only one of the notifications i.e.,22/94. It is not even alleged that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93 in exercise of power under Section 5-A of the Act granting exemption upto ₹ 30 ,00,000 /- in a financial year in favour of the small scale industries. The respondent is a small scale industry. In the subsequent year, Notification No.22/94 was issued stipulating the concessional duty at 10%, in case paper and paperboards are manufactured, using unconventional raw material. 3. On 01.03.1995, the Government issued Notification No.22/95. This is to the effect that in a given financial year, a manufacturer shall not be entitled to avail the benefit under both the Notifications viz., 1/93 and 22/94. The respondent got clearance of goods manufactured between 15.03.1995 and 31.03.1995. Alleging that the goods were got cleared by availing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 35-G of the Act are framed and they are mostly referable to certain precedents. The period in question in the instant case is 15.03.1995 to 31.03.1995. This is obviously subsequent to the publication of Notification No.22/95. The only controversy is as to whether the respondent was entitled to avail the benefit under Notification No.1/93 on the one hand and Notification No.22/94 on the other hand, within the same financial year, even for different periods, by pressing into service one of the notifications. The gist of the contention of the appellant is that once the manufacturer chooses to avail the benefit under one notification in a particular financial year, it shall not be entitled to press into service the other notification, even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
