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: (i) Whether the petitioners' products were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 101 of 1966 as amended, on the footing that the raw material was purchased from the open market and/or that excise duty must be treated as already paid on the inputs; and (ii) whether the refund of Rs. 5,15,559.92 was governed by the amended refund provisions and had to be re-examined in accordance with them.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners' products were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 101 of 1966 as amended, on the footing that the raw material was purchased from the open market and/or that excise duty must be treated as already paid on the inputs.
Analysis: The notification granted exemption to emulsifiers and similar preparations if either of two conditions was satisfied: the inputs had already suffered excise duty, or the surface active agents used as raw material had been purchased from the open market on or after 20 January 1968. The purchases were found to have been made from open market sources after the relevant date. It was further held that, on the facts, the purchase of raw material from small-scale units enjoying exemption could also satisfy the first condition, since the inputs were treated as duty-paid for the purpose of the notification. The exemption notification, being fiscal in character, was construed in the light of the controlling Supreme Court interpretation which accepted satisfaction of either alternative condition.
Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to exemption under the amended notification in respect of their products.
Issue (ii): Whether the refund of Rs. 5,15,559.92 was governed by the amended refund provisions and had to be re-examined in accordance with them.
Analysis: The amount of Rs. 7,54,714.70 stood on a different footing because refund to that extent had already been granted earlier. The remaining amount of Rs. 5,15,559.92 had been obtained under an interim order, and the later inserted refund provision applied. In the light of the amended statutory scheme and the Supreme Court rulings on the effect of pending refund claims, the petitioners were required to comply with the statutory refund conditions, including the requirement that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The Court therefore directed deposit of that amount with interest and required the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the refund afresh under the amended law.
Conclusion: The refund claim for Rs. 5,15,559.92 was subject to the amended refund provisions and was not finally allowed in the petition.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of recognition of exemption and the earlier refund component, while the balance refund was left to statutory reconsideration under the amended excise refund regime.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification is framed in the alternative, fulfilment of either alternative condition is sufficient to claim the exemption, but a refund claim pending when the governing statute is amended remains subject to the amended refund requirements.
TaxTMI 
