TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's unit was approved by the Government for the purpose of development of handlooms so as to avail the exemption under Heading No. 5107.23 of the Central Excise Tariff; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed was liable to be reduced.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant's unit was approved by the Government for the purpose of development of handlooms so as to avail the exemption under Heading No. 5107.23 of the Central Excise Tariff.
Analysis: The tariff entry covered processed wool fabrics only when the processing was undertaken by a factory owned by a registered handlooms co-operative society or by an organisation set up or approved by Government for the purpose of development of handlooms. The certificate relied upon by the appellant referred to Khadi and Village Industries activities, but it did not show approval for the specific purpose of development of handlooms. The entry was construed according to its express language, and the benefit depended on satisfaction of that condition.
Conclusion: The exemption under Heading No. 5107.23 was not available to the appellant; this issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed was liable to be reduced.
Analysis: In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty was considered excessive to the extent imposed and was scaled down by the appellate authority.
Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the exemption issue, but the penalty was reduced, so the matter was disposed of with only limited relief to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: A tariff exemption conditioned on Government approval for development of handlooms can be claimed only when such approval is ly shown by the evidence and cannot be inferred from a general certificate.
TaxTMI 
