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 appeal, allowing exemption claim per Notification No. 63/95-CE, citing precedence over Revenue's argument.</h1> <h3>Macas Brakes Automotive Pvt Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Delhi-IV</h3> Macas Brakes Automotive Pvt Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Delhi-IV - TMI Issues:Appeal against impugned order dated 01.11.2007 regarding exemption claim under Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 for supply of goods to M/s Bharat Earth Movers Ltd for further manufacture supplied to Ministry of Defence.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing brake linings and clutch facings under Chapter Heading 68 & 84 of Central Excise Tariff, supplied goods to M/s Bharat Earth Movers Ltd under exemption claim of Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. The Revenue contended that since the appellant was not specified in the notification, the exemption could not be extended to them, leading to a demand of Rs. 31,334. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the present appeal.The appellant's advocate argued that the issue had been previously decided in their favor by the Tribunal in a similar case and cited relevant case laws to support their stance. The Revenue representative reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals) findings.Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found the issue to be squarely covered by its previous decision in the appellant's own case, where a similar exemption claim was allowed. The Tribunal emphasized the precedence of its decision over the Revenue's argument, citing a case where the Tribunal's decision favoring the assessee was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief for the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable and set it aside, ultimately allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The operative part of the decision was pronounced in court, bringing the matter to a favorable conclusion for the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 