Collector of Central Excise Vs. Automatic Mfg. and Marketing Co.

Collector of Central Excise vs Automatic Mfg. and Marketing Co.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Jan 09, 1997

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10610

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/10610
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge: U Bhat, S T K.
Decided On: Jan 09, 1997
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Automatic Mfg. and Marketing Co.

Legal References

Reported In: (1997)(69)LC304Tri(Chennai)

Excerpt

.....february and march 1986. the purport of these notifications is identical, namely, exemption of goods falling under t.i. 68 of the erstwhile central excise tariff other than sandal wood oil and cleared for home consumption by or cm behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories upto a prescribed value. the question is how the value of clearances is to be reckoned since there may be exemption enjoyed under other notifications also. explanation ii(a) to notification which covers the ground reads as follows: ii-for the purposes of computing the value of clearances under this notification,- (a) the clearances of excisable goods which are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon by any other notification (not being a notification where exemption from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon is granted based upon the value or quantity of clearances made in a financial year issued under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the central excise rules, 1944 and for the time being in force, shall not be taken into account; the ordinary clearances which are exempted under other notifications are not to be taken into account in calculating the total value of clearances for the purposes of deciding whether limit of exemption has been reached or not. however, if the other exemption notification is one where exemption is based on value or quantity of clearances, the value of clearances made under such notification is to be added of the purpose of notification no. 77/85.3. the respondents were enjoying the benefit of exemption notification 167/79. if the exemption is based on value or quantity of clearances, the value of such clearances has to be added for the purposes of reckoning the limit under notifications 77/58 and 175/86. notification no. 167/79 is not based on value or quantity of clearances. it is a general and conditional exemption on the specified products. therefore, it will not come under the excepted category under explanation ii(a) of.....

Full Judgment

1. Since common question arises for consideration in these appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Respondents in these two appeals are absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR for the appellant.

2. The question which arises for consideration is the entitlement of respondents to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 77/85 which was in force till 28.2.1986 and of Notification No. 175/86 which came into force w.e.f. 1.3.1986. The period in dispute in these appeals is February and March 1986. The purport of these Notifications is identical, namely, exemption of goods falling under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff other than sandal wood oil and cleared for home consumption by or cm behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories upto a prescribed value. The question is how the value of clearances is to be reckoned since there may be exemption enjoyed under other Notifications also. Explanation II(a) to Notification which covers the ground reads as follows: II-For the purposes of computing the value of clearances under this Notification,- (a) the clearances of excisable goods which are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon by any other notification (not being a notification where exemption from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon is granted based upon the value or quantity of clearances made in a financial year issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and for the time being in force, shall not be taken into account; The ordinary clearances which are exempted under other Notifications are not to be taken into account in calculating the total value of clearances for the purposes of deciding whether limit of exemption has been reached or not. However, if the other exemption Notification is one where exemption is based on value or quantity of clearances, the value of clearances made under such notification is to be added of the purpose of Notification No. 77/85.

3. The respondents were enjoying the benefit of Exemption Notification 167/79. If the exemption is based on value or quantity of clearances, the value of such clearances has to be added for the purposes of reckoning the limit under Notifications 77/58 and 175/86. Notification No. 167/79 is not based on value or quantity of clearances. It is a general and conditional exemption on the specified products. Therefore, it will not come under the excepted category under Explanation II(a) of Notification 77/85 and 175/86. The Appellate Collector was correct in holding that such clearances under Notification No. 167/79 is to be ignored for the purpose of Notifications 77/85 and 175/86.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Automatic Mfg. and Marketing Co. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge U Bhat, S T K.