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>CESTAT rules in favor of appellant in SSI Exemption Notification dispute, upholding entitlement to exemption</h1> <h3>M/s. Maniar & Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, ruled in favor of the appellant in a dispute concerning the availment of SSI Exemption Notification No. ... SSI Exemption - Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 01.3.1986 - As the appellant had cleared body buildings up to an approximate value of Rs. 20 Lakhs, Revenue restricted the duty free clearances of metal containers only up to Rs. 10 Lakhs, instead of Rs. 15 Lakhs available to them, in terms of the notification - Held that: there is no merit in the Revenue appeals in view of the decision in EL. P. EM. INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. (1989 -TMI - 74786 - CEGAT, MADRAS) and we are compelled not to interfere with the order in order in Appeal impugned - Decided in favour of the assessee Issues:Dispute related to availment of SSI Exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 01.3.1986 for manufacturing Body Building on duty paid Chassis and Metal Containers. Interpretation of the notification regarding clearances and exemption limits. Application of the decision in the case of Ramakrishna Engg. Works vs. Commissioner 1996 (83) ELT 346 (Tri. LB) on computation of clearances for different items under the exemption notification.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved a dispute concerning the availment of SSI Exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 01.3.1986 by the appellant engaged in manufacturing Body Building on duty paid Chassis and Metal Containers. The appellant was entitled to unconditional exemption up to the first clearance value of Rs. 15 Lakhs for each item under the notification. However, a controversy arose as the appellant, after availing exemption for body buildings up to Rs. 15 Lakhs, started paying concessional duty rates for subsequent clearances. The Revenue contended that the clearances made at concessional rates should impact the computation of clearances for metal containers under the exemption, leading to a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 69,298.The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of the notification and the applicability of the decision in the case of Ramakrishna Engg. Works vs. Commissioner 1996 (83) ELT 346 (Tri. LB). The Larger Bench decision in the Ramakrishna case had established that total clearances up to a certain limit must be considered, including clearances made on payment of duty, affecting the exemption for other items. However, subsequent judgments of the Tribunal had varied in following this decision, citing conflicting precedents and Supreme Court confirmations. The Tribunal referred to cases such as CCE, Indore vs. Neo Era Agro Engineering and Solar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C., Rajkot to support the position that the Ramakrishna decision was no longer considered good law. The Tribunal emphasized that the matter had been extensively reviewed, leading to a consistent interpretation favoring the assessee.Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The decision highlighted the settled position in previous cases and the rejection of Revenue appeals by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the exemption as per the notification. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles involved, resolving the dispute in favor of the appellant based on the interpretation of relevant precedents and notifications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
