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>Manufacturers entitled to tax benefit despite not following simplified procedure under Central Excise Rules</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF C. EX. Versus JAIN & CO. IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES</h3> COLLECTOR OF C. EX. Versus JAIN & CO. IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 185 (Tribunal) Issues:- Denial of benefit of Notification No. 158/71 to manufacturers of bolts and nuts.- Interpretation of the second proviso to Notification No. 14/76.- Applicability of simplified procedure under Central Excise Rules.Analysis:The case involved manufacturers of bolts and nuts who were charged for not opting for the simplified procedure under Central Excise Rules. The dispute arose when the Central Excise Officer observed that the manufacturers had cleared goods without following the prescribed procedures. The department imposed duty and a penalty, which was partially upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The department appealed against the order, arguing that the manufacturers were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 158/71 due to non-compliance with the simplified procedure.The department contended that as per the second proviso to Notification No. 14/76, manufacturers eligible for the simplified procedure but not opting for it would not be entitled to exemption based on clearances during a financial year. The department argued that since the manufacturers did not opt for the simplified procedure or work under Chapter V relating to physical control, they should not receive the benefit of the notification. However, the Collector (Appeals) held that the second proviso was meant to prevent double benefits and should not be interpreted to deny benefits under other notifications to those not covered by Notification No. 14/76.The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the department's appeal. It noted that the second proviso could not be applied when the notification itself was not extended to or availed of by the assessee. Additionally, it was established that the manufacturers had not exceeded the specified value of clearances in a financial year, making them eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 158/71. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the manufacturers were entitled to the benefit of the notification, and the department's appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 