9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11) TMI 530 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], the Apex Court confirmed the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal that Notification No. 41/99-Central Excise is mandatory in its character and that the conditions A & B are to be read together for availing the exemption [2007 (4) TMI 668 - Supreme Court of India]. Thus, the Apex Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year? 3. Whether the appellant having filed an undertaking in 1999, and having started getting its benefit for 1999-2000, is required to file a second undertaking in 2000 to avail the benefit for subsequent years? 4. Whether the Tribunal erred in not applying the principles of purposive interpretation and reasonable interpretation accepted by the Supreme Court of India, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecent rulings of the Apex Court? 9. Whether the eligibility criteria or conditions prescribed by Notification No. 41/99 are only (a) purchase of 66.66% tea from growers having less than 10 hectares and (b) 6 months minimum working of the factory in the previous year? and 10. Whether the CESTAT was justified in not adverting to the contention of the appellant that an undertaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision in the case of Golden Dew Tea Factory v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T. 362, the Apex Court confirmed the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal that Notification No. 41/99-Central Excise is mandatory in its character and that the conditions A B are to be read together for availing the exemption [2008 (221) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
