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>Supreme Court affirms separate treatment of small-scale industries for exemptions</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that two small scale industries should not be clubbed for SSI exemption purposes as they operated ... SSI exemption – clubbing clearances - both the units had common Directors – since accounts of both the units are managed separately - they have separate capital, premises, machinery and labour and carrying out separate operations – clearances cannot be clubbed – held that packing charges could not be included in the A.V. as the material for the same had been supplied by the buyers to the assessee free of cost – revenue appeal dismissed – tribunal’s finding is justified Issues:1. Clubbing of units for SSI exemption2. Inclusion of packing charges in the assessable valueClubbing of units for SSI exemption:The case involved two small scale industries granted SSI exemption under specific notifications. The assessing officer issued show cause notices to explain why the clearance of both units should not be clubbed together due to common directors and management. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially accepted the appeal, ruling that both units should be clubbed for SSI exemption purposes. The Tribunal, however, overturned this decision, noting that the units operated separately with distinct accounts, capital, premises, machinery, and labor. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's findings as factual and confirmed that the units were distinct entities eligible for separate treatment.Inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value:Regarding the inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value, the Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that packing charges could not be included as the material was provided by buyers at no cost. The Tribunal supported this decision, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Polymers vs. CCE. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the relevant judgments, agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation and upheld that the point regarding packing charges was settled against the revenue and in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
