TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
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 - (New and Powerful) ✕ 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 the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 20/98-C.E. for DTA clearances made by a 100% export-oriented undertaking, or whether Notification No. 13/98-C.E. applied so as to require payment of duty at the higher rate and justify the differential demand.
Analysis: Notification No. 20/98-C.E. granted concessional excise duty on specified fabrics cleared by a 100% EOU from indigenous raw materials, subject to the goods being otherwise chargeable to nil duty if made by a DTA unit and being sold in India in accordance with the relevant EXIM Policy paragraphs. Notification No. 13/98-C.E. also operated in the field, but prescribed a different basis of duty for specified EOU clearances. The goods were found to fall within the description covered by Notification No. 20/98-C.E., and the appellant had cleared them on that basis. Where two exemption notifications apply to the same commodity and confer different benefits, the assessee is entitled to elect the notification that is more beneficial, and the Department cannot compel adoption of the less beneficial one.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 20/98-C.E., and the differential demand raised by applying Notification No. 13/98-C.E. was not sustainable.
TaxTMI 
