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>Tribunal Upholds Order in Enamelware Exemption Case</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III Versus DELUXE ENAMEL INDUSTRIES</h3> The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, ruling in favor of the respondent in a case concerning the interpretation of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. The ... Reflectors - Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E. Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. for goods manufactured by the respondent.2. Maintainability of the appeal due to subsequent allowance of benefit under the same notification.Interpretation of Notification No. 76/86-C.E.:The case involved determining whether goods marketed as Vitreous Enamelled Reflectors by the respondent qualified for the benefit of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. The Central Excise Officers intercepted goods without proper documentation, leading to a show cause notice for duty payment. The respondent argued their product was enamelware exempted under the notification, citing exemption regardless of the chapter heading. The Collector dropped proceedings, but the Central Board of Excise & Customs disagreed, claiming the reflectors were not eligible for the exemption. The literal construction of the notification was emphasized, and the Collector later dropped the case. The Tribunal noted that the respondent was allowed the benefit for a subsequent period, leading to the conclusion that they should not be deprived of the benefit for the earlier period. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to define enamelware as readymade articles, finding the respondent's products fell under this definition. The impugned order was upheld due to the lack of legal infirmity, especially considering the Department's permission for subsequent benefit.Maintainability of the Appeal:The respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable as they had been allowed the benefit of Notification No. 76/86 for a subsequent period, indicating no change in the notification or the product description. The Department was urged to verify this claim. The Tribunal found merit in the respondent's argument, noting that if the benefit was granted for a later period, it should also apply to the earlier period. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected based on these findings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
