TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether newsprint cleared from the factory to a depot and thereafter supplied to registered newspapers continued to satisfy the conditions of Notification No. 23/1998-CE dated 01.08.1998 so as to remain eligible for nil rate of duty, and whether the demand and penalty were sustainable.
Analysis: The goods manufactured by the appellant were undisputedly newsprint covered by Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and Notification No. 23/1998-CE dated 01.08.1998. The record showed that the goods were intended for printing of newspapers, that the appellant was a manufacturer of newsprint specified under the Newsprint Control Order, 2004, and that the ultimate clearances from the depot were made against purchase orders placed by newspapers registered under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The intermediate movement from factory to depot did not alter the character of the goods, and the supply through depot could not defeat the exemption when the substantive conditions were otherwise met. The place of removal could include the depot from which the goods were sold.
Conclusion: The conditions of the notification were held to be satisfied, the denial of nil rate of duty was unsustainable, and the demand with penalty could not stand.
TaxTMI 
