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 goods which were non-excisable during the base year and therefore not included in the base clearance could be denied the benefit of Notification No. 198/76-C.E. when they later became excisable during the incentive period.
Analysis: The Notification extended concession to goods answering the description specified therein. The exclusionary explanation relied upon by the revenue dealt with goods exempted from duty in the base period, not goods which were non-excisable in that period. Since the subject goods were not excisable during the base year, their omission from the base clearance was justified, and that omission could not be used to deny the concession when the goods became excisable in the incentive years. The notification contained no express condition excluding such goods from the benefit merely because they had not formed part of the base clearance.
Conclusion: The goods were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 198/76-C.E. during the incentive period, and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A concession notification cannot be denied to goods that were non-excisable in the base period merely because they were absent from the base clearance, where the notification does not expressly exclude such goods and the goods otherwise fall within its description during the incentive period.