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: (i) Whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 despite affixation of the brand name on the goods, on the footing that the factory was located in a rural area.
Analysis: The notification exempts goods bearing a brand name or trade name if they are manufactured in a factory located in a rural area. The evidence on record included certificates from the Tehsildar and the Regional Officer, MIDC, certifying that the unit was situated in Mouza Nildoh, Tehsil Hingna, which was treated as a rural area. The departmental challenge did not controvert the genuineness of those certificates or produce contrary evidence to show that the area was not rural. In these circumstances, the finding that the unit satisfied the rural area condition was upheld.
Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-CE and the Revenue's challenge failed.