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 respondents were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 43/82-C.E. for the clearances made from the leased premises, and whether the prior clearances of M/s. Allvee Dye Chemicals from the original factory could be clubbed with the respondents' clearances for applying the monetary limit under Clause 2(ii).
Analysis: Clause 2(ii) of Notification No. 43/82-C.E. denied exemption where the aggregate value of clearances from any factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers exceeded the prescribed limit in the preceding financial year. The decisive question was whether the premises leased to the respondents were shown, on evidence, to be the very same factory unit in which M/s. Allvee Dye Chemicals had been manufacturing during the relevant period. No lease deed, approved ground plan, or other material was produced to establish that the exact portion earlier used by M/s. Allvee Dye Chemicals had been transferred and continued as the same factory for the respondents. In the absence of such proof, clubbing of clearances could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the exemption, and the denial of exemption on the basis of prior clearances of M/s. Allvee Dye Chemicals was not justified.