TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules against retrospective duty exemption appeal on pollution control equipment parts</h1> <h3>ASIA BROWN BOVERI LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the claim for concessional duty on parts of pollution control equipments during a specific period. It was ... Pollution control equipments - Parts thereof Issues:Claim of appellants regarding concessional duty to parts of pollution control equipments during a specific period.Analysis:The appellants manufacture pollution control equipments and parts thereof, previously eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 78/90. Claimed that parts were omitted from the consolidated exemption in Notification No. 5/98 dated 2-6-1998, rectified later by Notification No. 32/98 dated 21-9-1998. Issue pertains to concessional duty for parts during 2-6-1998 to 20-9-1998. Appellants argued the omission was a mistake rectified by the subsequent notification, seeking extension of exemption for the intervening period.The Tribunal observed that Notification No. 5/98 dated 2-6-1998 clearly excluded parts of pollution control equipments from its coverage. Parts were specifically included through amending Notification No. 32/98 dated 21-9-1998. Exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted based on clear and unambiguous wordings. The Tribunal did not find the amendment on 21-9-1998 to be clarificatory. It was evident that parts were omitted on 2-6-1998 and included on 21-9-1998. The authority lacked the power to grant retrospective duty exemption, and no retrospective effect was given to the amending Notification No. 32/98 through any Act of Parliament.The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal due to the clear exclusion of parts in the initial notification and subsequent inclusion through an amendment. However, considering the circumstances, including the appellants' payment of differential duty before the show cause notice, the imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 was deemed unjustified and set aside. The appeal was dismissed, except for the penalty being overturned.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
