Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 39 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (11) TMI 39 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 594 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - Denial of refund claim - Export of goods to Nepal - Availability of alternate benefits - Held that:- As per the facts available on record there are two procedures for export of goods to Nepal. One is prescribed under Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT) on payment of duty and the second is prescribed under Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) under Bond without payment of duty. Both the notifications are conditional notifications .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessments completed. Appellant has also not challenged the assessment made in the shipping bills. It is also not the case of the appellant that it was prevented from opting benefit under Nofification No. 45/2001-CE(NT). - order passed by the first appellate authority is legally correct and there is no reason to interfere with order - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. : E/1252/2008-SM - ORDER No. A/11115/2015 - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y under Notification No. 20/2004-CE (N.T) Dated 06/09/2004. Appellant after payment of duty filed a refund claim on the ground that he was entitled to export the goods as per the provisions of Notification No. 45/2001-CE (N.T.) Dated 26/06/2001. Learned Advocated relied upon the Case Law of CCE Ludhiana Vs. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills [2008 (229) E.L.T. 99 (Tri.-Del.)]. It was his case that when two alternative benefits under different notifications are admissible then appellant can opt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion No. 45/2001-CE(NT) under Bond without payment of duty. Both the notifications are conditional notifications subject to fulfilling certain procedures and conditions Appellant opted to pay duty under Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT). After the export of goods to Nepal, appellant wanted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) by arguing that duty was not required to be paid. Appellant is relying upon the Case Law of CCE Ludhiana Vs. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills (Supra). Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fied category of hospitals (charitable) subject to certification by Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The table in the notification classified hospitals in four categories. According to the appellant, it falls under para No.-3 of the table of notification. (5) The appellant, however, along with several other hospitals, had applied for the benefit of exemption notification not under para 3 but para 2 of the table. The benefit of exemption was granted. Since the Society was also entit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS, by an order dated January 25,2000 rejected the application of the appellant observing there in that initially the request was made by the appellant for exemption under para 2 of the Notification and accordingly, the institution was granted such exemption. It was, therefore, not open to apply for exemption under para 3 of the table of the exemption notification and the application was liable to be rejected. (6) Being aggrieved by the above order passed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntion that a categorization could be changed but it held that the exemption is granted in category 2 of the table, certain information was sought which was not supplied by the Society and the exemtion was withdrawn. Regarding category 3, however, the High Court observed that when the appellant did not fulfill condition relatable to category 2 institution, its claim for conversion of categorization under category 3 was untenable. Accordingly, all petitions were dismissed. 4.1 Hon ble Apex Court w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no force and must be rejected. 5. In the above Case Law the opinion of Apex Court was that appellant in that case cannot be denied the benefit under para-3 if it is otherwise entitled to such benefit. It means an alternative exemption benefit can be availed by a person if he fulfills the conditions of the alternative notification. It has been ruled so by Apex Court in para-16 of Share Medical Care Vs. UOI (Supra). In the present appeal before this bench alternative notification could be admissib .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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