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 imported inputs used in the factory for manufacture of final products were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., which applies to inputs manufactured in a factory and captively consumed in the same factory.
Analysis: The exemption notification was directed to inputs manufactured in a factory and used within the same factory in the manufacture of final products. The goods in question were imported, not manufactured in the respondents' factory, and their use in the factory did not amount to captive consumption within the meaning of the notification. The distinction drawn from the earlier Supreme Court decision concerning countervailing duty and a different notification did not assist the respondents, because the present notification itself was limited to factory-manufactured inputs.
Conclusion: The imported goods were not covered by Notification No. 217/86-C.E. and the exemption was wrongly granted; the issue is decided in favour of Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification confined to inputs manufactured in a factory and captively consumed therein cannot be extended to imported inputs merely because they are used in the factory for manufacture of final products.