TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. was available to iron and steel products manufactured from ship-breaking scrap when the assessee failed to establish that the inputs had already suffered excise duty or additional customs duty.
Analysis: The notification granted exemption to the final products only where the inputs had already suffered duty of excise or additional duty of customs. For the first period, the assessee did not produce gate passes or any other proof showing duty payment on scrap purchased directly from ship-breakers, even though benefit had already been extended for scrap purchased from traders. For the later periods, the gate passes on record themselves showed that the scrap was fully exempted under Notification No. 386/86-C.E. or that duty paid was nil. The condition in Notification No. 208/83-C.E. therefore remained unfulfilled. The contention that the scrap should be treated as duty paid because customs duty or CVD had been paid on the ship was rejected.
Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. was not available to the assessee for the disputed scrap, and the exemption claim failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the duty demand sustained because the inputs were not proved to be duty paid within the meaning of the exemption notification.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification for final products is conditional upon the inputs having already suffered duty, the benefit cannot be claimed unless actual duty payment on the inputs is established; inputs that are exempt or shown as nil duty do not satisfy that condition.
TaxTMI 
