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 the assessee could opt to avail Notification No. 9/98-C.E. from 1-8-98 despite having paid duty at the normal rate from 1-4-98 to 31-7-98, and whether such earlier clearances had to be counted while computing the limit for concessional clearances.
Analysis: Notification No. 9/98-C.E. granted concessional duty on first clearances in the financial year and specifically provided that clearances effected before 2-6-98 under the earlier exemption or at nil rate were to be taken into account for computing the Rs. 50 lakhs limit. The restriction in the notification prevented a manufacturer who had opted for the notification from withdrawing that option in favour of another scheme during the financial year. It did not prohibit a manufacturer from starting to avail the notification later in the year, provided prior clearances were included in the aggregate. The earlier clearances at normal rate from 1-4-98 to 31-7-98 were therefore required to be counted, and the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate from 1-8-98.
Conclusion: The denial of the benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E. was unsustainable and the assessee's claim was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification expressly requires prior clearances to be included in the prescribed aggregate, the benefit cannot be denied merely because the assessee paid duty at the normal rate before opting into the notification, so long as the statutory conditions are otherwise satisfied.