1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
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> The appeal regarding eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 during March 1986 was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the benefit under ... SSI Exemption - Notification No. 175/86-C.E. 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 
TaxTMI 
