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 grants SSI exemption despite missing declaration, reaffirming adherence to notification requirements.</h1> <h3>Shree Krishna Bearing Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai</h3> The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, holding that they were entitled to the Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Notification ... SSI Exemption - whether the appellant is entitled for SSI exemption N/N. 175/86-CE dated 01/03/1986 for the period 1991-92, when they failed to file a declaration under N/N. 13/92-CE (NT) dated 14/05/1992? - Held that: - merely for non-filing of said declaration, substantial benefit of N/N. 175/86-CE dated 01/03/1986 cannot be denied. It is the fact on record, which is admitted in the order passed by the lower authorities that the appellant’s turn over in both the relevant years were well within the exemption limit of ₹ 30 lakhs - appellant was entitled for exemption N/N. 175/86 and/or 1/93-CE - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Entitlement to SSI exemption under Notification No.175/86-CE for the period 1991-92 without filing a declaration under Notification No.13/92-CE (NT).Analysis:The main issue in this case revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to the Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Notification No.175/86-CE for the period 1991-92 despite not filing a declaration under Notification No.13/92-CE (NT). The appellant argued that the non-filing of the declaration under Notification No.13/92-CE (NT) was merely a procedural requirement for exemption from obtaining Central Excise Registration and should not affect the entitlement to the substantial beneficial Notification No.175/86-CE. The appellant's counsel relied on various judgments to support this argument, emphasizing that the exemption should not be denied based solely on the failure to file the said declaration.On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the findings in the impugned order should be upheld, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. The Revenue argued against granting the SSI exemption based on the non-filing of the declaration under Notification No.13/92-CE (NT).After considering the submissions from both sides, the tribunal examined the relevant notifications and found that the denial of the SSI exemption was solely based on the appellant's failure to file the declaration under Notification No.13/92-CE (NT). However, upon reviewing the notifications, the tribunal noted that there was no requirement in Notification No.175/86-CE or Notification No.1/93-CE for filing such a declaration. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant's turnover in both relevant years was well within the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs, making them eligible for the exemption under Notification No.175/86-CE and/or 1/93-CE. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of carefully examining the specific requirements outlined in relevant notifications when determining entitlement to exemptions, emphasizing that the failure to fulfill a procedural requirement unrelated to the specific exemption conditions should not automatically disqualify an applicant from availing the benefits under the relevant notifications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
