Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 exemption under Notification No. 58/86 was available when the goods were removed for use in another factory of the same manufacturer without compliance with Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The notification granted exemption to specified tools and dies manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the same factory, and in the case of use in another factory of the same manufacturer, expressly made the exemption subject to observance of the procedure under Chapter X. The Chapter X scheme was treated as a set of linked conditions, with registration and bond under Rule 192 being central to its operation. The claim that non-compliance was only a technical lapse was rejected. The cited authorities on procedural relaxation were distinguished on facts, as the present case involved admitted non-observance of the Chapter X requirements and no departmental default or substantial compliance sufficient to sustain the exemption.
Conclusion: The exemption was not admissible, and the issue was decided against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification makes compliance with a specified procedural scheme an express condition for availing the concession in inter-factory use, failure to comply with that condition disentitles the assessee from the exemption.