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 the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-C.E. was unavailable to a manufacturer who was availing the benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E. during the same financial year.
Analysis: Condition 15 of Notification No. 5/99-C.E. excluded a manufacturer who availed exemption under Notifications No. 8/98-C.E. and 9/98-C.E. The operative effect of Notification No. 9/98-C.E. was that the manufacturer could not change the option in favour of Notification No. 8/98-C.E. during the financial year. Since the appellant was admittedly availing the benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E., it could not simultaneously be treated as outside the exclusion in Notification No. 5/99-C.E.
Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 5/99-C.E. was rightly denied, and the issue is decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the appellant remained within the class of manufacturers excluded from the exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. by reason of its availing the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 9/98-C.E.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification excludes manufacturers availing specified prior exemption notifications, a manufacturer already electing and availing one such notification cannot claim the later exemption if the exclusionary condition is attracted on the facts.