Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 moulds and moulding equipments manufactured by the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 281/86 dated 24-4-1986, and whether the duty demand and penalty confirmed against them were sustainable.
Analysis: The exemption applied only to excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory and intended for use in the same factory or another factory of the same manufacturer for repairs or maintenance of machinery installed therein. The appellants did not use the goods captively in their own factory, but supplied them to another unit for manufacturing glass and glassware. The record also showed that the appellants' unit was a full-fledged factory and not a workshop for repair or maintenance purposes. Even on the assumption that both units formed one concern, the moulds and moulding equipments were complete appliances used for producing varieties of glass and were not machinery or parts meant for repair or maintenance of installed machinery.
Conclusion: The exemption was not available, and the duty demand and penalty were upheld.