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 grants duty exemption under Notification No. 35/95-C.E. to appellants, overturning Commissioner's decision.</h1> <h3>VARDHMAN SPG. & GEN. MILLS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH</h3> VARDHMAN SPG. & GEN. MILLS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 94 (Tribunal) Issues:- Duty demand confirmation against appellants arising from 8 show cause notices.- Eligibility of appellants for exemption under Notification No. 35/95-C.E. and subsequent notifications.Analysis:1. Duty Demand Confirmation:- Eight appeals stemmed from a common adjudication order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 3,37,51,829.25 against the appellants based on different counts covered by show cause notices.2. Exemption Eligibility Issue:- The main issue in all appeals was whether the appellants qualified for exemption under Notification No. 35/95-C.E. and subsequent notifications.- Appellants were accused of splitting their unit into spinning and dyeing units post the exemption notification to avoid excise duty payment on value addition.- The Department argued that the bifurcation was merely administrative, and both units were integral parts of the same company.3. Appellants' Defense:- Appellants maintained that the bifurcation was legitimate for administrative purposes, with Unit No. 1 manufacturing yarn and Unit No. 2 handling dyeing exclusively.- They had informed authorities about the division, obtained separate registrations, and applied for factory division before the relevant notifications.4. Commissioner's Decision:- The Commissioner upheld duty demands based on previous orders and rejected appellants' contentions.5. Tribunal Hearing:- The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, with appellants citing a previous order in their favor on a similar issue.- Appellants argued that their dyeing unit was a separate factory eligible for duty exemption under the notifications.- The Department contended that the purported bifurcation was only on paper, and the units were not distinct for excise law purposes.6. Tribunal's Decision:- The Tribunal analyzed the dispute regarding duty exemption eligibility in light of the relevant notifications and factory definitions.- It noted that the appellants' application for separate registration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules deemed them entitled to factory status for duty exemption.- Relying on previous decisions and undisputed facts, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders and granting them consequential benefits.7. Conclusion:- The Tribunal allowed the appeals, recognizing the appellants as eligible for duty exemption benefits under the notifications based on the legitimate factory division and compliance with registration procedures.
TaxTMI 