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: (i) Whether exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E. was available when the finished goods were manufactured from duty-paid inputs mixed with internally generated scrap arising from an earlier exempt stage. (ii) Whether the Revenue's appeals challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order deserved to be allowed.
Issue (i): The exemption condition required duty-paid inputs, but it did not stipulate that the final goods must be manufactured only, exclusively, or entirely from such inputs. The scrap used in the manufacture of the goods had itself originated from the specified input chain, and the inclusion of such internally generated scrap did not alter the character of the inputs for the purpose of the notification. Reliance was placed on the earlier tribunal view and the Supreme Court principle that mixing duty-paid material with non-duty-paid material does not by itself defeat the benefit where the notification does not impose exclusivity.
Conclusion: Exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E. was available to the assessee.
Issue (ii): Since the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly applied the governing principle to the facts and granted relief, no interference was warranted in the Revenue's challenge.
Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The order granting exemption was sustained, and the departmental challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification requires duty-paid inputs but does not demand exclusive use of such inputs, exemption is not lost merely because internally generated scrap from an earlier exempt stage is also used in manufacture.
TaxTMI 
