TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. where the inputs were cleared at nil rate of duty and were not duty-paid.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. applied only when the final products were manufactured from specified inputs on which duty of excise had already been paid. The explanatory clause created a deeming fiction for stocks of inputs in the country, except those clearly recognizable as non-duty paid. After the amendment by Notification No. 63/91-C.E., the phrase excluding stocks charged to nil rate of duty was omitted, but the remaining explanation still excluded clearly recognizable non-duty paid inputs. In the light of the binding interpretation of the phrase "duty paid" and the clarification that nil-rated goods cannot be treated as duty paid, inputs cleared at nil rate remained non-duty paid for purposes of the exemption. The Board circular also supported this interpretation.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption, and the demand was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification requires duty-paid inputs, goods cleared at nil rate of duty are to be treated as non-duty paid and do not satisfy the condition for exemption, notwithstanding a deeming explanation in the notification.
TaxTMI 
