Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Versus M/s. Tanschem Limited

2015 (9) TMI 349 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Benefit of exemption under Notification No.8 of 1997 - Held that:- Notification No.8 of 1997 is not amended by Notification No.13 of 1998. It may have been amended by Notification No.7 of 1998 dated 2nd June, 1998, but that is not what has been pressed into service before us. What has been pressed into service is the allegation and in the show cause notice pertaining to the amendment to Notification No.8 of 1997 by a Notification No.13 of 1998. A perusal of the copy of the 1998 Notification does .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

umstances, the finding of fact does not raise any substantial question of law - Decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 6 of 2014 - Dated:- 10-3-2015 - S.C. Dharmadhikari & S.P. Deshmukh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kantharia with Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra For the Respondent : Mr. Darius Shroff, senior counsel with Mr. Harsh Meghnani i/b M/s. Thakordas Madgavkar ORDER P.C. : 1. This appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee to avail of the benefits and since the assessee has fulfilled the conditions which have been laid down in the Notifications, there is nothing erroneous of illegal in the act of the assessee. 3. Mr. Kantharia appearing for the Revenue in support of this appeal submits that the question of law framed at page 10 paragraph 5(I) is a substantial question of law. He would submit that in the show cause notice, there was a specific allegation that the benefit of exemption under Notification No.8 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed per cent export-oriented undertakings can clear the finished goods, rejected goods and waste and scrap etc. in domestic tariff area (DTA) which is manufactured wholly and of indigenous raw material. However, by the amendment parties like the assessee are required to pay excise duty equivalent to fifty per cent of the aggregate of customs duty leviable on like goods if imported into India. Mr. Kantharia submits there is a specific entry of fresh mushroom in customs under tariff sub-heading No. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

crutiny and verification by this Court. That is required because of the failure of the Tribunal to note the amendment to the Notification No.8 of 1997 relied upon by the assessee. The question, therefore, is whether the Notification is really amended or superseded by a further Notification. The appeal, therefore, be admitted. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shroff learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that there are concurrent findings of fact. It is erroneous to assume that N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.13 of 1998 is issued to exempt the finished products, rejects and waste or scrap specified in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, produced or manufactured in hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking or a free trade zone wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India, from so much of the duty of excise leviable under section 3 of the Central Excise Act as is in excess of the amount equivalent to fifty per cent of the aggregate of the duties of the customs which wo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

firming the order-in-original, the Appellate Authority viz. the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Pune has observed that the assessee was following Notification No.8 of 1997 dated 1st March, 1997 and the review is based on Notification No.13 of 1998. For the period prior to the issuance of Notification No.13 of 1998, it therefore, cannot be utilised so as to review the position prior to its issuance. Mr. Shroff submits that there was a specific contention raised by the assessee viz. that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

face of the record. 6. With the assistance of Mr. Kantharia and Mr. Shroff we have perused the relevant part of the show cause notice. The allegations in the show cause notice have been summarised in the submissions of Mr. Kantharia. Having perused these allegations, the Adjudicating Authority was required to find out as to whether the exemption as claimed by the assessee under Notification No.8 of 1997 dated 1st March, 1997, as amended, is admissible or not. The Adjudicating Authority visited .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tely the canned mushrooms have either been exported or cleared in domestic tariff area on payment of appropriate central excise duty. The conditions of these Notifications have been extensively set out and the conclusion that is reached is that the benefits of this Notification could not have been disallowed by the Revenue. 7. In paragraph 19 of the order-in-original, it has been mentioned as to how Notification No.8 of 1997 dated 1st March, 1997, as amended by Notification No.7 of 1998, is stil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dings in that regard are to be found in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of the order of the First Appellate Authority. 9. Since Mr. Kantharia has raised a issue and very vehemently, particularly whether the Notification of 1997 viz. Notification No.8 of 1997 was the applicable one or was it superseded or amended by any later Notification, we have, with the assistance of Mr. Kantharia, perused copies of both Notifications. Notification No.8 of 1997 is not amended by Notification No.13 of 1998. It may have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version