Just a moment...
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%
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 product manufactured by the assessee was classifiable so as to attract exemption under Entry 57 of the table to Notification No. 4/97 dated 1st March 1997.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the correct tariff classification of the product. The product was examined against competing headings under the Central Excise Tariff and was found not to fall under the headings claimed by the assessee. The reasoning accepted the view that the product was classifiable under Heading 39.16, which was outside the scope of the exemption entry. Once the product was held to fall outside the covered headings, the exemption under the notification could not be claimed.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to exemption under Entry 57 of Notification No. 4/97, and the duty demand was upheld.