1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal overturns Commissioner's decision, finds lack of evidence for exemption under Notification No. 52/86.</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as ... Entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 52/86-C.E. Issues:Classification under Notification No. 52/86 for Fibre Glass Reinforced Sheet Moulding Compound and Dough Moulding Compounds.Analysis:The appeal was filed by a manufacturer of specific compounds approved under a classification list benefiting from Notification No. 52/86. The Commissioner initiated a review application under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, challenging the classification decision. The main contention was whether the compounds were eligible for the exemption under the notification, which applied to goods 'other than those impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics.' The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the manufacturing process and concluded that the compounds did not qualify for the exemption as the glass fibres were coated and covered by plastics during production.The appellants challenged the Commissioner's decision on various grounds, including discrepancies in the facts presented, lack of new reasons for review, classification disputes, and failure to consider relevant official communications. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's findings were based on a report that was not contested by the Revenue. Moreover, the review order lacked specific reasons for considering the compounds as 'impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics.' It was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the review grounds without proper notice to the appellants, and the order could not be sustained without evidence of plastic coating on glass fibres. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
