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 assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 where the goods bore a brand name but were manufactured for supply to a customer for further manufacture, and whether the matter required reconsideration in light of the CBEC clarification.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the scope of the brand name restriction in the exemption notification. The Board's circular clarifying that small scale goods supplied only to a customer for further manufacture would not necessarily fall within the mischief of the brand name bar was relevant and had a bearing on the controversy. As that clarification was issued after the impugned order and could materially affect the eligibility question, the proper course was to send the matter back for fresh consideration by the original authority.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration in the light of the Board's clarification; the issue of exemption eligibility was left open for fresh decision.
Final Conclusion: The appeals did not result in a final determination on the exemption claim, and the controversy was returned to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on all connected appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: A later binding departmental clarification bearing directly on the scope of an exemption notification warrants remand for fresh adjudication where it may materially affect the assessee's entitlement.