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 the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 9/99 for the financial year 1999-2000, and whether the value of captive inputs could be included while computing the prescribed clearances limit.
Analysis: The appellant had filed the requisite declaration and its clearances in the preceding financial year were below the prescribed ceiling. The condition in the notification required the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption in the preceding financial year not to exceed the limit. There was no evidence that the appellant had crossed that limit. Captively used inputs were not liable to be included in the computation of clearances for the purpose of the exemption.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 9/99, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the appellant obtained the consequential relief flowing from the exemption.
Ratio Decidendi: For an SSI exemption notification, only the qualifying aggregate clearances specified by the notification can be counted, and captive consumption cannot be added to deny the exemption in the absence of proof of violation of the prescribed limit.