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 steel seats designed for use in automobiles remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 61/86-Central Excise dated 10-2-1986 merely because they were actually used in hydraulic excavators, front end loaders and cranes.
Analysis: The exemption turned on the design and intended use of the goods rather than the actual equipment in which they were ultimately fitted. A prior decision in the assessee's own case had already held that steel seats designed for use in automobiles could not be denied exemption merely because they were used in tractors and trucks as moving equipment. The same reasoning applied here, since the revenue's objection was only that cranes and front end loaders are not automobiles, which did not displace the earlier finding on the design-based eligibility of the seats.
Conclusion: The steel seats were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 61/86-Central Excise dated 10-2-1986, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded and the assessment order was set aside with relief granted.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification grants benefit to goods specially designed for a specified end use, eligibility depends on that design and not on the subsequent actual use of the goods in another machine or equipment.