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 steel wire drawn from duty-paid steel wire rods was entitled to the electric furnace concession under the relevant exemption notifications, and whether any further differential duty was payable.
Analysis: The concession under the notifications was held to attach to the product, not to the particular manufacturer or the factory in which every processing stage took place. The proviso required that the specified products be manufactured with the aid of an electric furnace and out of prescribed scrap or related inputs. Since the wire rods from which the wire was drawn had already satisfied those conditions and had enjoyed the concession, the same benefit could not be denied merely because the wire-drawing stage was carried out separately. The effective duty on the wire was therefore the same as the duty already paid on the rods, and no further duty could be demanded under the set-off arrangement.
Conclusion: The wire was held eligible for the electric furnace concession and the demand for differential duty was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption proviso grants concessional duty to specified products manufactured with the aid of an electric furnace and from prescribed inputs, the concession is product-based and does not depend on the manufacturer possessing the furnace or on all processing being done in the same factory.