Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTSimultaneous availment of benefit of exemption under Notification No 1/93 CE and 22/94 CE - Assessee contends that it did not avail the benefit under both the Notifications simultaneously at any given point of time from 15.03.1995 onwards and that depending upon the circumstances, it availed the benefit either under Notification No.1/93 or 22/94 - 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 - 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 the respondent has availed such dual benefit after Notification No.22/95 came into force. In fact, the assessing authority, who issued show cause notice, examined the record and found that the benefit under Notification No.22/94 alone was utilised for the period in question. The appellate authority however proceeded on the assumption that once the respondent has availed the benefit under Notification No.1/93, for a part of financial year 1994-95, it is not entitled to switch over to the benefit under the other notification. This is not at all evident from either the notification or any decided case. The Tribunal has in fact pointed out that accepting the contention of the Department would amount to giving retrospective effect to Notification No.22/95. We do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. - Decided against Revenue.
|