Just a moment...
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 the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 by excluding the value of branded goods allegedly manufactured for a third party while computing the aggregate value of clearances for the preceding financial year.
Analysis: The benefit of the notification depended on the aggregate value of clearances in the preceding financial year and the exclusion, under para 3, of the value of branded goods manufactured by an assessee for another person. The appellants did not disclose in the classification list or in reply to the show cause notice that they had manufactured branded goods for any third party, and no contemporaneous evidence was produced before the adjudicating authority to support that claim. Their own declaration in the classification list stated that they did not manufacture branded goods. In these circumstances, the later-produced letters and gate passes were not accepted as reliable evidence, and the plea for exclusion of branded goods value was treated as an afterthought.
Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to exclude the value of branded goods, and denial of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was upheld.