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 Notification No. 58/86-CE dated 10-2-1986 was available to tools manufactured in the assessee's factory and used captively, and whether denial of the exemption on a ground not stated in the show cause notice was permissible.
Analysis: The exemption dispute turned on the construction of the notification, specifically whether the reference to Chapter 82 qualified the tools entitled to exemption or the machines in which the tools were fitted. The Commissioner's own finding accepted that Chapter 82 related to the tools and not to the equipment or machines in which they were used. Once that construction was accepted, the basis of the show cause notice for denying exemption disappeared. The appellate authority also could not sustain denial of the benefit on a fresh ground not proposed in the notice, since adjudication must remain within the scope of the notice and the assessee must be put on notice of the case to meet.
Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 58/86-CE was available to the tools, and denial on a new ground outside the show cause notice was impermissible.
Ratio Decidendi: Denial of a fiscal exemption cannot be sustained on a ground not contained in the show cause notice, and the notification must be construed according to its text rather than by importing a limitation not expressed therein.