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 →

KEI Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur

2016 (1) TMI 921 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Exemption under notification NO.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 as amended vide Notification No.29/2003-CE dated 10.4.2003 denied - failure to produce the certificate before clearances and therefore are not eligible for the exemption - falire v/s late production of certificates - Held that:- From the copy of certificate produced before adjudicating authority, it is clear that the goods were cleared to DMRC Ltd. for use in DMRC project and therefore the goods satisfied the condition for being exempted. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cate is only a procedural lapse for which the benefit of exemption cannot be denied. In the appellants' own case KEI Indus Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-2008 (2007 (10) TMI 497 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) in a similar issue, this Tribunal has held that mere late production of essentiality certificate is not a ground for denying the benefit of exemption. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/3066/2007(DB) - Final Order No. A/53683/2015 EX(DB) - Dated:- 1-12-2015 - Sulekha Beevi CS, Member (J) And B. R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.3.2002 as amended vide Notification No.29/2003-CE dated 10.4.2003. It was observed by the department that the appellant is not eligible for exemption as the appellant has not fulfilled the condition in the notification which states that before the clearance of the goods, manufacturer has to produce a certificate from the chairman or Managing Director of the DMRC Ltd. to the effect that the goods are produced by or on behalf of DMRC Ltd. for use in the DMRC project and the goods are part of the .....

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 certificate was produced before the adjudicating authority again on 12.4.2006. But the demand was confirmed without considering the same. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR, Ms. Neha Garg supported the impugned order and argued that being an exemption notification it should be construed strictly. As per the notification, the appellants have to produce the certificate before clearances. The appellants have failed to produce the certificate before clearances and therefore are not eligible fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thority. The only grounds on which the benefit of exemption is denied is that the certificate was not produced before clearances and that the certificate produced before the adjudicating authority is only a copy. The appellant has pleaded that DMRC Ltd. issued the required certificate dated 5.7.2005, 18.7.2005 and 11.8.2005 which were sent to the Deputy Commissioner under certificate of posting on 6.7.2005, 20.7.2005 and 13.8.2005 respectively. That DMRC Ltd. had also sent copies of these certif .....

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