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>Manufacturing unit wins appeal for Central Excise duty exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Versus M/s Electricity Pole Manufacturing Unit</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an Order-in-Appeal, affirming the manufacturing unit's eligibility for exemption under Notification ... SSI Exemption - N/N. 1/93 dated 25/02/1993 - N/N. 74/93-CE - Scope of notifications - Held that: - I did not find N/N. 74/93-CE being subject matter of the present appeal - Explanation (E) of Notification No.8/2002-CE and Explanation (E) of Notification No.8/2003-CE are para-materia same - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.18-19/CE/APPL-LKO/LKO/2017 dated 12/01/2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow.- Eligibility to avail exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE.- Comparison of Explanation (E) of Notification No.8/2002-CE and Notification No.8/2003-CE.- Reference to Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28/02/1993 in relation to eligibility for exemption.Eligibility to Avail Exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE:The case involved a manufacturing unit engaged in the production of PCC Poles under chapter head 680790 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent had cleared goods without paying Central Excise duty, claiming benefit under Notification No.8/2003-CE. The Revenue contended that the respondent was not eligible for the exemption, leading to the issuance of show cause notices for duty recovery and penalties. The Additional Commissioner upheld the demand and penalty. However, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orders-in-original, citing a previous Tribunal decision where it was established that the respondent was eligible for the exemption.Comparison of Explanation (E) of Notification No.8/2002-CE and Notification No.8/2003-CE:The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a Tribunal decision that explained the eligibility of the respondent to avail the benefit under Notification No.8/2002-CE. The respondent argued that the issue in the present appeal was similar, involving the applicability of Explanation (E) to both Notification No.8/2002-CE and Notification No.8/2003-CE. The Tribunal accepted this argument, emphasizing the similarity between the two explanations and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.Reference to Notification No.74/93-CE dated 28/02/1993:The Revenue raised grounds of appeal based on a Tribunal decision regarding Notification No.74/93-CE, contending that a similar exemption was not available to another party. However, the Tribunal, after considering the contentions and records, noted that the subject matter of the present appeal did not concern Notification No.74/93-CE. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's eligibility for exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE based on the precedent set in the respondent's own case and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the comparison of the explanations under different notifications and the respondent's eligibility for the exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the respondent's entitlement to the exemption.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
