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>Demerger Benefits Upheld: Units Eligible for Tax Exemption under Notification No. 6/2000</h1> <h3>CCE, Ludhiana Versus AST Paper Mills Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the eligibility of both units to individually avail the benefits of Notification No. 6/2000 ... Benefit of N/N. 6/2000 - SSI exemption - case of Revenue is that both the units are in the same premises sharing the same main gate, roads, etc., and also have common facility for steam generation, therefore, it is one factory so both the units cannot avail benefit of notification separately - Held that: - in respondent’s own case for the earlier period [2006 (9) TMI 441 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] this Tribunal has allowed the benefit of SSI Exemption to both the factories in terms of N/N. 6/2000 - benefit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2000 for exemption eligibility.2. Determination of whether two factories under different private companies can individually avail exemptions.3. Assessment of factory-wise exemption eligibility post-demerger.4. Consideration of common facilities and premises for determining factory status.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of M/s. AST Paper Mills Ltd. and M/s. B.K. Krafts Ltd. to avail the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 for the manufacture of paper and paperboard. The appellant argued that both units, post-demerger approved by the High Court, should be considered as separate factories entitled to individual exemptions. They cited relevant legal precedents to support their claim, emphasizing the distinct ownership and management of the units. The appellant contended that even if two factories belong to the same company, they can qualify for exemptions separately if they meet the specified criteria. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the units shared common facilities and premises, indicating a single factory status and disqualifying them from separate exemptions.The Tribunal, led by Mr. Ashok Jindal, analyzed the contentions of both parties. They noted that in a previous case, the Tribunal had allowed SSI Exemption to both factories under the same Notification. Based on this precedent and considering the facts presented, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order denying the Revenue's appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of the demerger scheme's legal implications, separate registrations post-demerger, and the guarantee of liabilities by M/s. AST Paper Mills Ltd. to M/s. B.K. Krafts Ltd. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the practical application of factory-wise exemptions and the significance of shared facilities in determining factory status for exemption eligibility.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the eligibility of both units to avail the benefits of Notification No. 6/2000 individually post-demerger. The judgment underscored the legal interpretations of factory status, demerger implications, and the application of exemptions under the Excise Act. The case provided clarity on the criteria for separate exemption entitlement for distinct factories under different private companies, emphasizing compliance with notification conditions and demerger scheme approvals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
