1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Successful appeal grants exemption for imported Poly Vinyl Alcohol under Notification 45/94.</h1> The appeal was successful as the Tribunal determined that the imported Poly Vinyl Alcohol (PVA) by the appellants fell under Heading A of Notification ... Words and Phrases Issues involved: Determination of whether Poly Vinyl Alcohol (PVA) imported by the appellants can be given the benefit of Notification No. 45/94 dated 1-3-1994 for use in the leather industry.Summary:The appeal was against the order of CC (Appeals) Madras, which did not extend the benefit of Notification 45/94 to the appellants regarding the import of Poly Vinyl Alcohol (PVA) for use in the leather industry. The key issue was interpreting the phrase 'for use in the leather industry' in the notification.The appellant's counsel argued that the goods imported fell under Heading A of the notification and should be entitled to the exemption. The counsel highlighted that the conditions under Heading B did not apply to Heading A goods. The respondent's representative contended that the goods should be imported by actual users to prevent misuse.Upon considering both sides' submissions, it was established that the goods imported by the appellants fell under Heading A of the notification. Unlike goods under Heading B, no specific conditions were attached to goods under Heading A. The phrase 'for use' in the leather industry was interpreted to mean intended for use, not necessarily actual use.Referring to legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, it was concluded that the exemption clause did not require proof of actual use. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supported this interpretation, emphasizing that proof of actual use was not a condition for exemption.The Collectors' conference recommended that items of general use, including those at issue, could be allowed under the notification without an actual use condition. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief for the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
