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 benefit of exemption under Notification No. 123/81-C.E. could be denied merely because the CT3 certificate had expired on the date of dispatch of the goods, and whether the refund claim was therefore unsustainable.
Analysis: The exemption was subject to the procedure prescribed in the notification, including certification in form CT3 by the officer in charge of the 100% export oriented unit. Although the certificate for the earlier period had expired by the time the goods were sent, the record showed that the certificate was subsequently renewed and that the consignment had in fact been received and used by the 100% export oriented unit. In these circumstances, the expiry of the earlier certificate did not justify denial of the exemption.
Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the ground of expiry of the earlier CT3 certificate, and the refund claim was allowable in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed because the procedural lapse relied upon was not sufficient to dislodge the exemption once renewal and receipt of the goods were established.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption under a notification requiring procedural certification cannot be denied solely because an earlier certificate had expired, where the certificate was renewed and the goods were shown to have been received by the eligible unit.