TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal denied for benefit under Notification No. 175/86, upheld for Notification No. 212/86 due to overlap.</h1> <h3>DEEJAY PLASTICS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MADRAS</h3> DEEJAY PLASTICS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MADRAS - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 952 (Tribunal) Issues:Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 during March 1986.Detailed Analysis:The issue in the appeal pertains to the eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 during the period from 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986. The Collector (Appeals) had ruled that the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 would not be available in March 1986 as it fell within the financial year 1985-86.The Managing Director of the appellant contended that Notification 175/86 does not specify that the benefit is available for the financial year 1986-87. The appellant argued that the eligibility should be based on clearances made in a financial year. However, a Larger Bench judgment in the case of M/s. Saidex Inds. v. C.C.E. concluded that Notification No. 175/86 would not be applicable from 1-3-1986. This decision was supported by a High Court judgment in the case of M/s. Prakash Security Devices v. U.O.I.The Tribunal noted that the issue was not about the effective date of Notification No. 175/86. Since there was an overlap between the provisions of Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 212/86, it was held that the benefit of Notification No. 212/86 would be available for the entire month of March 1986. Consequently, the plea for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was dismissed, and the appeal was upheld in favor of the benefit under Notification No. 212/86.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant's claim for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 could not be granted based on the findings of the Larger Bench judgment and the overlap between Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 212/86. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed concerning the plea for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, and the benefit under Notification No. 212/86 was deemed applicable for the relevant period.
TaxTMI 