TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 upholds respondent's benefit under duty notifications, emphasizing precedent and industry understanding.</h1> The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a previous apex court ruling in favor of the respondent, affirming the correctness of the impugned ... Eligibility of exemption - waste steam and low boiling component to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 8/1997, 13/1998 and 23/2003 - the products should have been manufactured wholly out of raw material produced or manufactured in India. - appellants were using imported raw materials. - The appellants have contended that they are maintaining separate records for storage and use of imported and indigenous Orthoxylene. The lower authority has noted this contention in the impugned order and has not controverted this. The appellants have further contended that they had paid normal duty on the products manufactured out of imported Orthoxylene and claimed concessional rate only in respect of products manufactured out of Orthoxylene manufactured / produced in India. Held that:- under EXIM Policy catalyst is covered as capital goods inasmuch as this Court in various judgments on the subject has taken the view that the raw material is not a defined term. On that basis, it is held that the meaning to the expression 'raw material' has to be given in the ordinary well accepted connotation in common parlance of those who deal with the matter. - Benefit of exemption allowed - Decided against the revenue. Issues:Eligibility of products for concessional rate of duty under specific notifications.Analysis:The appeal addressed the eligibility of waste steam and low boiling component for a concessional rate of duty under specific notifications. The primary condition in these notifications was that the products must be wholly manufactured from raw materials produced or manufactured in India. The adjudicating authority found that the respondent had wrongly availed exemption benefits under these notifications by using imported raw materials. The first appellate authority supported the respondent's claim by acknowledging their separate records for imported and indigenous raw materials, along with paying normal duty on products made from imported raw materials. The absence of evidence to prove manipulation in the maintained records led to the allowance of the exemption for goods made from raw materials produced in India. The appellate tribunal cited a previous case where a similar demand was set aside due to lack of evidence of falsification in records, emphasizing the importance of following precedent.The respondent's counsel highlighted a similar issue previously decided by the apex court in the respondent's favor, where the tribunal's interpretation of 'raw material' was deemed appropriate, considering the common industry understanding rather than a specific definition from the EXIM Policy. Since the apex court had already ruled in favor of the respondent on an identical issue, the tribunal found no grounds for the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the impugned order as correct and free from any defects, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the previous apex court ruling in favor of the respondent, affirming the correctness of the impugned order and emphasizing the importance of consistency in legal decisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
