Just a moment...
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 assessees manufacturing goods covered by a conditional exemption notification could decline the exemption, pay duty on clearances, and avail Modvat credit on inputs used in such manufacture.
Analysis: The exemption under clause (2) of paragraph 1 of Notification No. 1/93 was held to be subject to the conditions in paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraph 3 withdrew the exemption where the aggregate clearances exceeded the prescribed limit in the preceding financial year, and paragraph 4 denied the exemption to goods bearing a brand name or trade name. The notification was therefore treated as conditional, and it was open to an assessee to take the view that the conditions would not be satisfied and to refrain from claiming the exemption. In such a situation, payment of duty on the goods and consequential Modvat credit on inputs was not impermissible.
Conclusion: The assessees were entitled to pay duty on the goods and take Modvat credit, and the revenue's objection was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the conditional exemption notification did not bar duty payment and input credit where the exemption conditions were not met or were not claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: A conditional exemption notification may be declined by the assessee where its conditions are not satisfied, and in that event payment of duty and availment of Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the goods were otherwise described as exempt.