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, for applying the ceiling in Notification No. 140/83, the clearances of tooth powder exempted under Notification No. 46/81-C.E. had to be included in the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods in the preceding financial year, thereby denying the exemption and sustaining the duty demand.
Analysis: Notification No. 46/81-C.E. granted exemption without linking it to the value or quantity of clearances in any financial year; it operated on a different condition, namely that the goods were manufactured in premises not answering the definition of a factory. Explanation II to Notification No. 140/83 excluded only those clearances exempted by another notification issued under Rule 8(1) that granted exemption based upon the value or quantity of clearances in a financial year. The phrase "for the time being in force" was construed in the context of the preceding financial year to mean a notification in force during that year, not a notification in force at the time of interpretation.
Conclusion: The clearances of tooth powder were not liable to be included for the ceiling under Notification No. 140/83, and the appellants remained entitled to the exemption for the relevant financial year; the duty demand was unsustainable.