TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund-exemption claim under Notification No. 39/2001-CE could be sustained without independent verification of the date on which the relevant plant and machinery were installed, and whether the matter required fresh adjudication.
Analysis: The dispute turned on a factual question: whether the goods for which exemption was claimed were manufactured from plant and machinery installed before the commencement of production on 14.01.2005, or whether the relevant machinery was installed later. The adjudicating authority had relied on an earlier identical matter and on the Board Circular dated 10.07.2008, but had not independently verified the documentary evidence for the present period. Since the earlier proceedings related to a different period, the facts of the present case required separate examination. The finding that the benefit of the notification may be available if the machinery was installed as on 31.12.2005 was noted, but the absence of proper verification made the original order unsustainable.
Conclusion: The matter had to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority and a fresh reasoned order passed after verifying the relevant facts.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was restored to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after due verification and hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
