Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 exemption from central excise duty under a conditional exemption notification was available when the goods were intended for use outside the factory of production but the prescribed procedural requirements were not complied with.
Analysis: The exemption notifications in both appeals made the benefit subject to two cumulative conditions: proof to the satisfaction of the prescribed excise that the goods were used for the intended purpose, and compliance with the prescribed procedure where such use was elsewhere than in the factory of production. In the first matter, the relevant procedure under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a valid registration certificate, and the certificate had expired before the disputed clearances. In the second matter, the procedure under Rule 3(1) of the 2001 Rules required the recipient manufacturer to apply in the prescribed form, which was admittedly not done. The plea that actual intended use or technical compliance was sufficient was rejected, as the exemption conditions had to be strictly fulfilled.
Conclusion: The exemption was not available. The demands of duty were sustained and the appeals were dismissed.