1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Tribunal allows benefits for 'Epoxy Resins' under Notification No. 198/76, despite non-excisable base year status.</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, determining that their products, 'Epoxy Resins,' were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 198/76 ... Excess Production Rebate Issues:Determining eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 198/76 for products not excisable during the base year under Central Excise Tariff Schedule.Analysis:The appeals were initially filed as Revision Applications before the Central Government and were transferred to the Tribunal for disposal. The crucial issue in all appeals was whether the appellants' products 'Epoxy Resins' not excisable during the base year 1975-76 under Item 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 198/76 when they became excisable under tariff Item No. 15A(1) CET subsequently. The appeals were heard, and the appellants argued based on a previous decision of the Tribunal. The Respondent contended that the products were not excisable under Item 15A(1) CET during the base period but under Item 68 CET, and thus, not eligible for the Notification benefit.During the hearing, the Senior Departmental Representative argued that the difference in excisability during the base period did not affect the applicability of the Notification. The Tribunal focused on the construction of the Notification and its application to the facts of the cases. The Tribunal emphasized that the Notification did not require a product-to-product linkage but a computation of clearances under 15A(1) CET during the base and incentive periods. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were eligible for the benefit of the Notification.In light of the above analysis, the appeals were successful, and the Central Excise authorities were directed to grant consequential relief to the appellants within four months from the date of the order's communication.