Just a moment...
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, for claiming the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 161/71-C.E. dated 1-7-1975, the quantity of tea samples used in auction and the quantity not sold at public auction but sold later by private negotiation could be treated as sold in public auction for computing the required average sale price and qualifying percentage.
Analysis: The notification required the manufacturer to prove that, during the specified three-year period, not less than 50 per cent of the loose tea manufactured had been sold in public auction and that the average price realised for such public-auction sales was less than Rs. 6.60 per kg. The claimed inclusion of quantities not actually sold in public auction would expand the scope of the exemption beyond its terms. The exemption depended on the certificate and proof of the price realised at auction, and only tea actually sold by public auction could be counted for that purpose.
Conclusion: The claim for exemption was rejected, and the order in appeal was upheld as correct in law.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the exemption notification had to be applied on the basis of actual public-auction sales, without enlarging its scope to include quantities sold otherwise.