Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Appellate Tribunal Upholds Denial of Exemption Claim for Handloom Society</h1> The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, upholding the Commissioner's decision to deny the appellant's claim for exemption ... Exemption to Registered Apex Handloom Co-operative Society Issues:1. Determination of whether M/s. Jamnagar Jilla Audhyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd. qualifies as a Registered Apex Handloom Co-operative Society for the purpose of claiming exemption under Notification No. 26/94 and Notification No. 27/95.2. Validity of the decision of the Commissioner rejecting the appellant's claim for exemption.Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Cellulosic Spun Yarn, sought exemption under Notification No. 26/94 and Notification No. 27/95 by claiming that the goods were cleared to M/s. Jamnagar Jilla Audhyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd., purportedly a Registered Apex Handloom Co-operative Society.2. The dispute centered around the status of M/s. Jamnagar Jilla Audhyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd. as a Registered Apex Handloom Co-operative Society. While the Manager, KVCI, and District Registrar of Co-operative Societies certified it as such, the Government of Gujarat provided a contradictory certification. The Tribunal, in its Order No. C II/2168/WZB/02, concluded that M/s. Jamnagar Jilla Audhyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd. did not meet the criteria of a Registered Apex Handloom Co-operative Society.3. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to present compelling reasons to challenge the Commissioner's decision. Given the conflicting certifications and the Tribunal's determination, the Commissioner's decision to deny the appellant's claim for exemption was upheld.4. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. The judgment was pronounced in open court, with no further grounds provided for interfering with the Commissioner's decision.