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>Tribunal upholds decision on exempted goods appeal, citing notifications and case law</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal – GST Versus M/s Chemtech Acids and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting Revenue's appeal against demands raised for exempted goods cleared by the respondent, a manufacturer of ... CENVAT credit - input/input services for manufacture of taxable as well as exempt goods - non-maintenance of separate records - demand of an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the exempted goods cleared - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the fact the respondent had cleared the sulphuric acid to fertilizer unit which availed the benefit of Notification No. 04/2006-CE as amended. The said Notification specifically provides for availment of an exemption subject to following the chapter X procedure. It is settled law, the goods cleared under chapter X procedure are not exempted goods - demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Revenue's appeal against dropping demands raised for exempted goods cleared by respondent.Analysis:The Revenue appealed against the dropping of demands raised against the respondent for clearing exempted goods without discharging duty. The respondent, a manufacturer of sulphuric acid, cleared goods to fertilizer units without paying duty as per specific notifications. Revenue raised demands as respondent did not maintain separate accounts for inputs. Adjudicating Authority confirmed demands, but the First Appellate Authority set them aside, citing Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal held that goods cleared under specific procedures are not exempted, as per relevant notifications and case laws cited. The Tribunal referred to various precedents and decisions to support the conclusion that the respondent's goods were not exempted. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on previous rulings in the respondent's favor. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere, as the issue was decided in favor of the respondent in their own case. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
