TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and the Finance Act on the file of the respondent, has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order in Original Nos.2&3 of 2015, dated 30.01.2015. By the impugned order, the respondent confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,36,733/- being the duty payable by the petitioner during the period 01.04.2012 to 30.11.2012, under Section 11A(10) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (Act), apart from ordering recovery of interest under Section 11AA of the Act and imposing equal penalty. In respect of show cause notice No.2 of 2014, the demand of Rs. 7,08,455/- was confirmed, apart from ordering recovery of interest and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner is exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No.12, 2012-CE, dated 17.03.2012, but the petitioner has not paid duty on items like cakes, pastries, ice creams etc., claiming benefit under the SSI exemption notification No.8 of 2003, CE, dated 01.03.2003, since their aggregate value of clearances does not exceed Rs. 150 lakhs in a financial year. The department found that they have not included the value of edible food preparation falling under chapter heading 2106 9099, which turnover exceeds Rs. 400 lakhs during the financial year 2011-12, claiming that edible food preparations are not excisable. 5. In the background of these facts, a show cause notice dated 09.05.2013, covering period from April 2012 to November 2012, was issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Restaurants should be taken into account to compute the aggregate value of clearances so as to decide the eligibility of availing the exemption provided under the Notification 8/2003-CE, dated 01.03.2003. 6. To decide the above questions, the Commissioner referred to the definition of 'manufacture' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, definition of excisable goods as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act and proceeded to discuss the contention raised by the petitioner stating that after cooking no distinct product emerges and held that such a plea was fallacious. Further, after taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 303 held that after co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord, it is seen that the case of the petitioner itself largely rests upon the decision in the case of Indian Hotels Co., Ltd., & Ors.,(supra). The said decision arose under the provision of the Income Tax Act and the matter pertains only to the flight kitchen operated by the appellant Hotel. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not deal with the other contentions. In the said case, CIT (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that Taj Flight Kitchen cannot be considered as a hotel, as it is a separate industrial undertaking, which is engaged in production of food packages on a large, organised and mechanised basis for the use of various International Airlines. It was held that the appellant therein was engaged in manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under section 80J it is apparent that it is used to mean production of a new article or bringing into existence some new commodity by an industrial undertaking. It would not be applicable in cases where only processing activity is carried out. 9. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertained to the question as to whether an assessee would be entitled to the benefit of deduction or investment allowance and what are the para meters. It was specifically pointed out that in the context of the provisions namely, Sections 80-J(1) proviso, 80-J(4), 80-J(6) and Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, which dealt with the grant of investment rebate or deduction under Section 80-J, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made such observations.....