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 cement manufactured from clinker purchased from outside the factory was eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 24/91-C.E. as amended, and whether the benefit was confined to cement produced using clinker generated in the same factory by the prescribed kiln process.
Analysis: The notification granted partial exemption only to cement manufactured in a factory answering the description in the table and subject to the conditions specified therein. For the appellant's category, the relevant conditions required use of the prescribed kiln and did not permit extension of the concession to cement made from clinker purchased from outside. The applicable notification had to be read according to its plain terms, and the exemption could not be enlarged by implication. The interpretation already adopted in prior Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions was applied.
Conclusion: The cement manufactured from externally purchased clinker was not entitled to the concessional rate of duty under the notification. The disallowance of exemption was and the appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The exemption claim was rejected, and the demand of differential duty was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed strictly according to its express conditions, and the concession cannot be extended to goods that do not satisfy the stipulated manufacturing requirement.