9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the court was made by PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA J.-The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of assessment dated December 30, 2002 (annexure P10) and the revisional order dated November 3, 2003 (annexure P13). In brief, the petitioner who is a manufacturer of formaldehyde, hexamine and monoethylene glycol (by-product) was granted the eligibility certificate dated April 26, 1995, for exemption from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hexamine in the main unit and had done the production of 1,052.95 MT in the expansion unit which was in excess of the installed capacity of 750 MT. The assessing authority, therefore, restricted the exemption to the installed capacity of 750 MT and denied exemption in respect of the excess production of 302.95 MT. The revisional authority vide order dated September 26, 2001, while allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in restricting the exemption to the installed capacity of the expansion unit whereas in terms of the exemption notification the petitioner is entitled to the exemption from payment of tax even for the production in excess of the installed capacity. He further submitted that while framing the fresh assessment on remand, the assessing authority has not considered the direction contained in the rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility certificate which has been granted to the petitioner is not in dispute and the same was already taken note of by the assessing as well as the revisional authority in the first round of litigation. This aspect of the matter has also been ignored by the revisional authority while passing the order dated January 3, 2003 and affirming the order of assessment dated December 30, 2002. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
