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 rebate under Notification No. 108/78-C.E. when the department claimed that Notification No. 36/76-C.E. applied and therefore paragraph 6 of Notification No. 108/78-C.E. barred the benefit.
Analysis: The assessee had applied for the necessary certificate for the relevant year, but the Directorate did not issue the quantified certificate before Notification No. 36/76-C.E. was rescinded. The earlier certificate mentioned the percentage of free sale for several years, yet the certificate quantifying the actual figure was issued only for the earlier year and not for the year in dispute. On those facts, the earlier precedent governing similar circumstances was treated as applicable, and the mere existence of an earlier application or general certificate did not justify denial of the later notification benefit.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 108/78-C.E., and the finding that Notification No. 36/76-C.E. disqualified the claim was incorrect.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the rejection of rebate was set aside, and the matter was sent back for grant of relief under Notification No. 108/78-C.E.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the required certificate under an earlier notification is not issued for the relevant period before that notification is rescinded, the assessee cannot be denied relief under the later notification merely because an earlier general entitlement had been indicated.