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 could be denied the benefit of Notification No. 148/82-C.E. for not filing the prescribed declaration, when the clearances were within the prescribed limit and the department had access to the clearance particulars through regular returns.
Analysis: The exemption was linked to aggregate clearances and the declaration was intended to inform the authorities of the likely level of clearances. The unit was newly set up, the assessee had initially believed that clearances would exceed the limit, and duty was paid accordingly. Later verification showed that the actual clearances remained within the prescribed threshold. The department was not prejudiced, because the unit was under excise control and the clearance position was reflected in the RT 12 returns. In these circumstances, the omission to file the declaration did not justify denial of the exemption.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification despite non-filing of the declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification is aimed at limiting benefits by reference to aggregate clearances, a procedural omission in filing declaration cannot defeat the exemption if the substantive eligibility is established, the department is aware of the clearances, and no prejudice is caused to revenue.