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 a manufacturer who was otherwise entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could be denied the exemption merely because the factory was shifted to a new premises and the new location was not separately registered with the industrial authorities.
Analysis: The exemption notification granted relief to goods manufactured in factories registered with the Director of Industries or the Development Commissioner (Small Scale Industries), but that requirement stood relaxed by the proviso to paragraph 4. Under proviso (b), the relevant consideration was whether the manufacturer had availed the exemption in the previous year. The Tribunal held that once this condition was satisfied, the benefit could not be denied solely because the premises were shifted. The argument that such an interpretation would permit multiple new factories to claim the benefit was rejected, since the notification contemplated clubbing of clearances where necessary. The issue was also covered by the earlier Tribunal decision relied upon and by the Board's instructions.
Conclusion: The shifted factory was not disentitled to the exemption, and the denial of benefit on the ground of change of location was unsustainable. The appeal was liable to be dismissed.