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 factory could be treated as having remained closed during the tool-down strike period for the purpose of computing base clearances and denying higher production concession under Rule 56AA and Notification No. 283/82-CE.
Analysis: The relevant notification granted production incentive on excess clearances over the base period and used the expression "closed" without defining it. The terms "closure" and "strike" were not interchangeable in law. Applying the plain and ordinary meaning of "closed", and reading the notification as a scheme concerned with clearances rather than mere production activity, the continued presence of officers and staff, operation of boilers and generators, and keeping the plant in working condition showed that the factory was not shut down in the relevant sense. The absence of production or clearances during the period did not by itself establish closure.
Conclusion: The period of tool-down strike could not be treated as closure for the purposes of the notification, and the assessee was entitled to the higher production concession.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption or incentive notification uses the term "closed" without definition, the word must be given its ordinary meaning in context, and a tool-down strike does not amount to closure if the factory continues to be kept operational.