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>Appellant granted exemption benefits after Tribunal acknowledges filing technicality & financial hardship. Stay granted.</h1> <h3>SHIVAM ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH</h3> SHIVAM ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH - 2012 (279) E.L.T. 479 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Duty and penalty imposition against the appellant for manufacturing semi-finished electrical fans as a job worker.2. Applicability of area-based exemption notifications to the appellant's factory in Himachal Pradesh.3. Dispute regarding the filing of a declaration for availing the benefit of the exemption notification.4. Financial hardship faced by the appellant leading to the closure of the factory.Issue 1: Duty and Penalty ImpositionThe appellant, a job worker for a manufacturer of electrical fans, was charged with duty and penalty for manufacturing semi-finished electrical fans from materials supplied by the principal manufacturer. The lower authorities considered the appellant's activities as manufacturing, invoking a longer period of limitation, which the appellant contested by claiming no manufacturing occurred, and the factory's location in Himachal Pradesh qualified for area-based exemptions.Issue 2: Applicability of Exemption NotificationsThe appellant's contention that the area-based exemption notifications should apply to their factory in Himachal Pradesh was rejected by the lower authorities due to the appellant's failure to file a declaration as required by the notifications. The appellant argued that the purpose of the declaration was merely to inform the Revenue of the unit's existence in the area and should not be a reason to deny the exemption benefit.Issue 3: Filing of Declaration for ExemptionThe Revenue supported the requirement of filing a declaration for availing the exemption benefit, emphasizing it as an essential condition of the notification. The appellant's advocate argued that the technical ground of non-filing should not prevent the appellant, located in the designated area, from benefiting from the exemption meant for area development.Issue 4: Financial Hardship and Factory ClosureThe appellant pleaded financial hardship due to the factory closure, leading to the proprietor's dependence on family. An affidavit was submitted, and the Revenue verified the factory's closed status. Considering the financial difficulties and the precedent of granting unconditional stay to a similar job worker, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, allowing the stay petition.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, acknowledging the technicality of the declaration filing requirement for exemption benefits and the financial hardship faced by the appellant. The Tribunal dispensed with the duty and penalty pre-deposit, granting a stay on the proceedings and directing the appeal to be listed along with a similar case for further reference.
TaxTMI 