TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether soap manufactured in a composite oil mill and solvent extraction unit was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30.4.1975, and whether the benefit could be denied on the ground that the solvent extraction plant was not continuously functional or that soap was not a bye-product of the notified industry.
Analysis: The exemption notification granted relief to goods manufactured in factories covered by the industries specified in the schedule, including oil mill and solvent extraction industry. The respondent was undisputedly engaged in a composite mill undertaking oil milling and solvent extraction. The notification did not prescribe that the exempted final goods must themselves be products of the scheduled industry, nor did it require continuous manufacture throughout the relevant period as a condition for availing the exemption. In the absence of contrary evidence showing that the respondent did not fall within the notified industry, the benefit could not be denied merely because soap was also manufactured or because the revenue sought to insist on an implied functionality requirement not found in the notification.
Conclusion: The soap manufactured by the respondent was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 115/75-CE, and the revenue's challenge to the dropping of proceedings failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
