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 exemption under Notification No. 6/02-C.E. dated 01.03.2002 and Notification No. 4/06-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 could be denied on the ground that conversion of pulp into paper was undertaken in another factory on job work basis and not in the same factory from which the final paper was cleared.
Analysis: The exemption notifications granted concessional duty to paper and paper board manufactured starting from the stage of pulp, subject to specified conditions, including the nature of the pulp and the quantum of first clearances. It was undisputed that the appellant used pulp of the prescribed specification and satisfied the other conditions in the notifications. The only dispute was whether the conversion of pulp into paper had to occur in the same factory. The paper rolls were converted on job work basis under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., returned without payment of duty, and the appellant remained liable to pay duty on the finished goods cleared from its unit. On this basis, the condition was held not to require denial of exemption merely because the paper-making process was outsourced.
Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied merely because pulp was converted into paper in another factory on job work basis; the demand and penalties were unsustainable and the appeals were allowed.