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>CESTAT Rules in Favor of Taxpayer Overturning Exemption Denial Under Notification 108/95-CE</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of M/s. Smita Conductors Ltd., overturning the denial of exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE. ... Exemption - Project financed by World Bank - Notification No. 108/05-C.E. Issues:1. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE to M/s. Smita Conductors Ltd.2. Interpretation of conditions for availing exemption under the notification.3. Comparison with a similar case involving M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd.4. Decision on the appeals and penalty imposition.Issue 1: Denial of exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE to M/s. Smita Conductors Ltd.The Tribunal addressed the issue of denial of exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE to M/s. Smita Conductors Ltd. for supplies of AAC Conductors/ACSR Conductors. The denial was based on the grounds that the required certificates indicated that the purchases were not yet financed by the World Bank as mandated by the notification. However, it was noted that the World Bank subsequently financed the project, which was confirmed on a specific date.Issue 2: Interpretation of conditions for availing exemption under the notificationThe Tribunal analyzed the conditions for availing the exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE, emphasizing the necessity of a certificate from the Executive Head of the project implementing authority and countersigned by an officer of a specified rank from the Government of India. It was highlighted that the certificate submitted by M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd. fulfilled these conditions, indicating entitlement to the exemption. The Tribunal stressed that the delay in World Bank financing did not negate the eligibility for exemption, and the intention of the government was to exempt goods supplied for the project from excise duty regardless of the financing status.Issue 3: Comparison with a similar case involving M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd.The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd., where a similar issue regarding exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE had arisen. In that case, the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the conditions for exemption had been met, and any delay in financing did not affect the eligibility for exemption. Following the precedent set in the M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd. case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order denying exemption and penalties, thereby allowing the appeals in the present case.Issue 4: Decision on the appeals and penalty impositionBased on the analysis of the relevant legal provisions and the comparison with the M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd. case, the Tribunal set aside the orders confirming duty and imposing penalties on M/s. Smita Conductors Ltd. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, concluding that the denial of the exemption in this case would defeat the purpose of the notification and that penal action against the supplier was premature and unwarranted. The applications were also disposed of accordingly.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai highlights the key issues addressed, the legal interpretations made, and the final decision rendered in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
