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

2024 (8) TMI 783

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation making themselves eligible for availing the benefit thereof. Support found from the observation of Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. KRSNA URJA PROJECTS LTD., SHRI SHANTANU SANGHI, DIRECTOR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I [ 2017 (12) TMI 1076 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] wherein it is held ' A liberal attitude, therefore, has to be taken in this regard, when the assessees otherwise are entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. It was also observed that exemption provisions have to be complied with strictly, but some latitude may be shown in case of some requirements which are directory in nature, the non-compliance of such requirements would not affect the substantive benefit of notification, gran .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntertaining a belief that the activity undertaken by them amounted to supply of manpower, registered themselves on 06.07.2005 under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency and were paying service tax. On conduct of an investigation, Department issued a Show Cause Noticed dated 07.09.2009, to the appellants, covering the period 10.09.2008 to 31.12.2008, seeking to recover Central Excise Duty of Rs.32,04,169/-, on the grounds that the activity undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture and exemption under Notification No.50/2003 was not applicable to them as they did not fulfill the conditions therein; Additional Commissioner vide order dated 25.10.2011 confirmed the duty demanded along with penalty; on an appeal filed by 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

..... sue is settled in the appellant s own case in their favour, the present proceedings, initiated by the Revenue, do not survive. 4. Shri Aneesh Dewan, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, reiterates the findings of the OIO and OIA. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the issue is squarely settled in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal vide Final Order cited above. We find that the Bench observed as follows : 19. Registration of the appellant under Finance Act, 1994 and its existence in the specified area of Himachal Pradesh, as well as its activity carried out as job worker of HUL was well known to record. Appellant bonafidely believed that it was not manufacturer and not liable to Excis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for filling of necessary declaration by the appellant for scrutiny of the adjudicating authority to grant area-based exemption shall serve interest of justice. The Authority granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant shall pass appropriate order. It is, ordered accordingly. 6. We also find that this Bench following the decision of the Tribunal as above, held in the case of Pearl Enterprises, vide Final Order No.60693/2023 dated 08.12.2023, as follows: 20. We find that the Adjudicating Authority pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal as above has allowed the benefit of notification on the basis of the declaration submitted by the appellants therein on 11.12.2014. We find that the above case squarely covers the iss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f some requirements which are directory in nature, the non-compliance of such requirements would not affect the substantive benefit of notification, granting exemption. 21. We further find that CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Gillette India (supra) held that the declaration filed by the principal manufacturer should be treated as the declaration filed by the job-worker. Tribunal held that: 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. Without going into the merits of the Department s case, that in terms of the agreement between M/s. Gillete and M/s. M.J., it is the M/s. Gillete, who is the actual manufacturer, even if the department s allegation is accepted and M/s. M.J. is treated as an agent .....

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