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>Melamine Faced Particle Boards cannot claim tariff exemption under Item-6 of Notification 55/1979</h1> <h3>Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad Versus Collector Of Central Excise And Customs, Hyderabad</h3> Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad Versus Collector Of Central Excise And Customs, Hyderabad - 1994 SUPPL. (3) SCR 549 Issues Involved:1. Classification of Melamine Faced Particle Boards (MFPBs) under the relevant tariff item.2. Eligibility of MFPBs for exemption u/r 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as per Exemption Notification No. 55 of 1979.3. Interpretation of exemption provisions in case of ambiguity.Summary:1. Classification of Melamine Faced Particle Boards (MFPBs):The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of particle boards, claimed that MFPBs should be classified as 'unveneered particle boards' under Item No. 6 of the table appended to Exemption Notification No. 55 of 1979, thereby qualifying for total exemption from duty. The Tribunal, however, classified MFPBs under Tariff Item-68, making them dutiable. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that MFPBs cannot be considered 'unveneered particle boards' as they undergo a different manufacturing process and are commercially distinct products.2. Eligibility for Exemption:The appellant argued that MFPBs should benefit from the exemption provided by Notification No. 55 of 1979. The Tribunal rejected this claim, and the Supreme Court agreed, noting that the melamine facing process results in a product that is not 'unveneered particle boards'. The Court emphasized that in commercial parlance, MFPBs and unveneered particle boards are not considered the same, and thus, MFPBs do not qualify for the exemption.3. Interpretation of Exemption Provisions:The appellant contended that any ambiguity in the exemption notification should be resolved in favor of the assessee. The Supreme Court disagreed, citing precedents that exemptions from taxation should be construed strictly. The Court stated that a person claiming an exemption must clearly establish their eligibility. In this case, the term 'unveneered particle boards' did not encompass MFPBs, and thus, the appellant could not benefit from the exemption.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's classification of MFPBs under Tariff Item-68 and denying the exemption under Notification No. 55 of 1979. The Court also ordered the appellant to pay the arrears of duty and allowed the respondents to encash the bank guarantees provided by the appellant.
TaxTMI 