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 requirement that imported goods be received in the importer's factory for availing concessional duty under the customs exemption scheme was substantive or merely procedural, where the goods were in fact used for the intended manufacture in another factory.
Analysis: The imported soya bean crude oil was not received in the respondent's own factory, but the record showed that it was used for the intended end-use, namely manufacture of refined soya bean oil. The authorities also noted that for a subsequent period the jurisdictional officer permitted the same mode of processing at another factory. On these facts, the condition regarding receipt of goods in the respondent's factory was treated as a procedural requirement, not one going to the root of eligibility for the notification benefit.
Conclusion: The benefit of the concessional notification could not be denied merely because the imported goods were sent for processing to another factory, since the end-use condition was satisfied and the requirement was procedural.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the order granting relief to the assessee was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are used for the intended manufacture and the disputed factory-receipt condition is only procedural, exemption or concessional duty benefit cannot be denied for non-compliance with that procedural formality.