Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee, having supplied goods against an international competitive bidding contract for a mega power project, was entitled to exemption under Sl. No. 336 of Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. despite the Revenue's insistence that the more specific entry at Sl. No. 338 should be applied.
Analysis: Sl. No. 336 grants nil rate of duty to goods supplied against international competitive bidding, subject to the stipulated conditions. The admitted facts showed that the goods were supplied as a sub-contractor pursuant to international competitive bidding and the required certification was available. Once the conditions of the entry were satisfied, the exemption could not be denied merely because another entry was also available for mega power projects. Where two exemption entries may apply, the assessee is entitled to choose the entry that affords greater relief, and the Revenue cannot compel adoption of a different entry if the claimed exemption is otherwise available.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Sl. No. 336, and the denial of that benefit was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: When an assessee satisfies the conditions of an exemption entry, the Revenue cannot deny that benefit by insisting on a different available entry; the assessee may opt for the exemption that grants greater relief.