Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 9/99-C.E. could be denied for want of a separate declaration, when the assessee had filed a declaration under Rule 173B before the first clearance.
Analysis: The condition in the notification required the manufacturer intending to avail the exemption to exercise the option in writing before effecting the first clearance. The requirement was meant to put the Revenue on notice, and no prescribed format or express stipulation for a separate declaration was shown in the notification. A declaration filed under Rule 173B, disclosing the option to avail the exemption before the first clearance, satisfied the condition. Denial of the benefit on the ground of absence of a separate declaration was held to be hyper-technical and inconsistent with justice.
Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable. The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification, and the order disallowing the exemption was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification requires written intimation of an option to avail exemption before the first clearance, a declaration that duly informs the Revenue and is filed in time constitutes sufficient compliance unless the notification expressly requires a separate prescribed declaration.