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 assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 40/95 when the relevant machinery for bleaching, dyeing and printing remained installed but the power supply was disconnected and the motor dismantled.
Analysis: The notification denied exemption to a processor having the facility for bleaching, dyeing, printing or similar processes with the aid of power or steam. The decisive factor was whether the assessee possessed the necessary equipment and machinery, not whether those facilities were actually operational at the relevant time. Disconnection of electricity and removal of the motor showed only that the machinery was not being run. It did not mean that the assessee had ceased to have the facility, since the relevant plant and equipment had not been removed or alienated.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 40/95 and the objection to eligibility failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, and the denial of exemption was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of an exemption notification excluding units "having the facility" for specified processes, the test is possession of the requisite machinery and equipment, not whether the machinery is operational at the time.