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 assessee was entitled to the duty exemption under Notification No. 226/77 as amended by Notification No. 323/77 during the relevant period, although approval as an independent processor was obtained only after that period.
Analysis: The amended notification made approval by the Government as an independent processor an essential requirement for availing the exemption. The approval process itself commenced only after the material period, and there was no material to show that the assessee had secured the requisite approval, or even applied for it, before the period for which differential duty was demanded. The plea that the later approval should relate back to the date of the amendment was not accepted, since the concession could not operate before the condition for its grant was fulfilled. The cited authorities on ambiguity in fiscal exemptions and on later satisfaction of statutory conditions were held inapplicable on the facts.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption during the material period and the demand was sustainable against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order denying the exemption benefit was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification makes prior approval a condition precedent to the grant of concessional duty, the benefit cannot be claimed for a period before such approval is obtained or can validly be related back.