TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: Whether waste paper used in the manufacture of paper could be treated as unconventional raw material for claiming exemption under the relevant notifications, and whether the test reports could by themselves justify denial of the exemption and the consequent demand and penalties.
Analysis: The exemption notifications granted concessional duty to paper manufactured starting from the stage of pulp, subject to the prescribed percentage of pulp made from materials other than bamboo, hard woods, soft woods, reeds or rags. The Board's circulars recognised that chemical and microscopic tests could not reliably determine the exact percentage of the relevant pulp content in a given sample and therefore required physical supervision and accounting checks. The record showed that the appellants maintained the prescribed accounts and that the department had periodically scrutinised them. The question whether waste paper should be treated as unconventional raw material had also been considered in prior Tribunal decisions and in Board circulars and trade notices, but those materials were not adequately considered in the impugned order. In these circumstances, the findings based solely on test reports and alleged discrepancies could not be sustained without fresh consideration of the governing circulars, precedents and factual records.
Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de novo adjudication after considering the Board's circulars, the relevant precedent decisions and the evidence on record.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
