TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Exemption denied for cement made from external clinkers under Notification 24/91</h1> The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption under Notification No. 24/91 for cement manufactured from externally procured clinkers, ruling that the ... Exemption under Notification No. 24/91-C.E. not available. Issues:Interpretation of Notification No. 24/91 for concessional rate of duty on cement manufactured from clinkers procured from outside.Analysis:The case involved the appellants engaged in cement manufacturing seeking exemption under Notification No. 24/91 for cement produced from clinkers obtained from M/s. Rajashree Cements during a specific period. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise denied the exemption, demanding differential duty. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore.The appellant's advocate argued that the notification does not prohibit using externally procured clinkers for cement production to avail the concessional duty rate. Citing a CEGAT decision, it was emphasized that the notification's wording did not mandate using only internally produced clinkers for the exemption. The advocate sought to set aside the lower authorities' decisions based on this interpretation.In contrast, the Revenue contended that a previous CEGAT decision in the case of Shankar Cements Company had established that the benefit of the exemption was contingent on using a shaft kiln for clinker production within the factory premises. The Supreme Court had upheld this interpretation, stating that the appellant's cement production did not meet the conditions specified in the notification.The Tribunal examined Notification No. 24/91, which provided partial exemption subject to specific conditions, including the use of a rotary kiln and a certified factory capacity limit. Referring to the Shankar Cements Company case, the Tribunal highlighted that the notification required the cement to be manufactured using a vertical shaft kiln within the factory premises to qualify for the concessional duty rate. The Tribunal concluded that the benefit of the notification applied only to cement produced using a rotary kiln within the factory and not from externally procured clinkers.Based on this interpretation, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decision to deny the appellants the exemption under Notification No. 24/91 for cement manufactured from clinkers purchased from outside sources.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
