TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Appellant granted tax exemption for late production start date under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E.</h1> <h3>SUVI CEMENT INDUS. PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMMU</h3> SUVI CEMENT INDUS. PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMMU - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 455 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Challenge to order of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding ineligibility for exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. based on production commencement date.Analysis:The appellant contested the Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding ineligibility for exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. due to production commencement date. Authorities rejected appellant's claim as production allegedly started before the specified date. Appellant argued that commercial production began after the specified date based on a modified certificate. Revenue contended that the initial registration certificate indicated an earlier production date, rendering the appellant ineligible for the exemption.The original certificate issued by the District Industries Centre certified that commercial sale of PPC cement commenced only from 15-6-2002. A corrigendum was later issued, clarifying the details of the production commencement. The certificate and corrigendum were deemed genuine by the Tribunal, confirming that the appellant started commercial production only after the specified date, contrary to the initial registration date. The Ministry's ad hoc permission and subsequent approval further supported the delayed production commencement.The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the authenticity of the certificate and corrigendum, both issued by an independent authority. It was evident that the appellant could not sell cement without a BIS certificate initially, and only received necessary approvals for production after the specified date. The earlier production date in the registration certificate was clarified as a trial production period, not commercial production. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, granting the appellant consequential reliefs.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the production commencement for commercial purposes occurred after the specified date, making them eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate documentation and official approvals in determining eligibility for tax exemptions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
