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>Tribunal orders fresh review on duty exemption eligibility and interpretation issues.</h1> <h3>M/s. Satyapal Shivkumar, M/s. Dharampal Premchand Ltd., M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Versus Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong</h3> M/s. Satyapal Shivkumar, M/s. Dharampal Premchand Ltd., M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Versus Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong - TMI Issues involved:1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 8/2004-CE for compound used in manufacturing chewing tobacco.2. Interpretation of duty payable for investment under Notification No. 8/2004-CE.3. Applicability of Notification No. 52/2002-CE to intermediate products when final products are exempt.4. Time bar for duty demand on compound.5. Requirement of declaration for availing exemption benefits.Analysis:Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 8/2004-CE for compound used in manufacturing chewing tobacco:The appellants manufactured compound for captive consumption in their factory for making chewing tobacco exempt under Notification No. 8/2004-CE. The dispute arose as the Department contended that compound was not eligible for exemption. The appellants argued that the compound fell under specified sub-headings of the notification, satisfying eligibility conditions.Issue 2: Interpretation of duty payable for investment under Notification No. 8/2004-CE:The appellants claimed that duty payable on compound should be considered zero, as it was used for captive consumption in manufacturing dutiable chewing tobacco. They argued that this fulfilled the investment condition under Notification No. 8/2004-CE, but the Ld. Commissioner did not consider this argument.Issue 3: Applicability of Notification No. 52/2002-CE to intermediate products when final products are exempt:The Ld. Special Counsel contended that since compound was used in making finished goods wholly exempt from duty, the benefit of Notification No. 52/2002-CE could not be extended to the compound. The appellants argued that the conditional nature of Notification No. 8/2004-CE allowed for exemption on intermediate products.Issue 4: Time bar for duty demand on compound:The Ld. Special Counsel argued that the demand was not time-barred as the appellants did not disclose the production of compound despite a judgment holding it dutiable. The appellants claimed that the demand was time-barred due to the Department's knowledge of compound production.Issue 5: Requirement of declaration for availing exemption benefits:The Ld. Advocate argued that no declaration was needed for availing the exemption under Notification No. 8/2004-CE. He emphasized that substantive benefits could not be denied for procedural reasons, reiterating views on limitation.The Tribunal found the issues in all appeals identical and set aside the impugned order for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority. The matter required a reevaluation of all raised issues, with a directive for a new decision within three months, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellants. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
