Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (6) TMI 1486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aised vide show cause notice dated 07.10.1993 for the period from Dec.1991 to Aug.1993, show cause notice dated 22.04.1994 for the period from Sept.1993 to Jan.1994 and show cause notice dated 28.06.94 for the month of Feb.1994 on identical charges. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that during the relevant period the respondent was manufacturing thinner along with over hundred other varieties of paints/varnishes and allied material since long. Earlier they were availing exemption under Notification No.179/1977. Later they started claiming exemption under Notification No.230/86 dated 03.04.1986. The department proposed denial of exemption under the said notification on the pretext that since the respondent was using power for transferring .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d 26.05.2000 passed in respect of the immediate preceding period relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Rajasthan State Chemical Works reported in 1991 (55) ELT 444 (SC). It was also brought to the notice of the lower authority that against the said decision of the Tribunal, appeal filed by the Department was also rejected long back. It was categorically brought on record by the respondents that the facts and circumstances of manufacture of thinner without the aid of power remained unchanged prior to and after 1991 i.e. during the period involved in the earlier case and the present case. Vide the present impugned order, the lower authority has dropped the demands by granting benefit of exemption under Not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... discipline requires that the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of respondent herein on the same issue and upheld by the Supreme Court will be binding. It is the contention of the respondents that the Department in its appeal has not distinguished the facts of the earlier case with the present case and, therefore, the appeal of the Department is not maintainable. As regards the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Waxpol (supra), it is the contention of the respondent that the Department has wrongly applied the said decision in the present case as in the said case it was observed by this Tribunal that the use of power driven pump for transfer of denatured spirit from the tankers to mild steel drums where solvents/additives .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve heard the parties and perused the appeal records. 6. The issue involved in the present case relates to admissibility of exemption Notification No.230/1986 dated 03.04.1986. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent was claiming exemption under the said notification since long and in the immediate preceding period, the demand was confirmed by the department, against which the appeal filed by the respondent herein before this Tribunal was allowed. The appeal filed by the Department against the said decision was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2002 (143) ELT A76 (SC). The lower authority while allowing the benefit of exemption notification, apart from other findings, has followed the decision of this Tribunal i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as the Department in its appeal also has referred to the said judgment in its favor. When the said judgment has already been referred and relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of respondent herein, mere placing reliance on said judgment without earlier decision is of no help to the Department. Since we are deciding the appeal by following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of the respondent herein, we are not going into other grounds of appeal contesting the reasoning on the basis of which lower authority has dropped the demand. 7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the respondent also gets disposed in the above manner. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates