Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)
Cce vs Peripherals India And Ors. on 29 July, 1993 cites

Kapoor Engg. Works vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 July, 1993

Mahaganapathi Engg. Works v. Collector of Central Excise and referring to the term 'a factory' appearing in the notification in question contended that the term refers to a single factory and the word 'a' has to be construed as "any". In this context he referred to the alphabet 'a' "the" and the meaning attached to it as given in "The World Book Dictionary Vol. I. On a reading of these words, 'a' would refer to "any" and hence if the manufacturer is having a certificate for any of the factory held by him then the benefit of the notification cannot be denied. As also the notification refers to clearances of 'one or more' factories of a manufacturer. The certificate of registration is for a manufacture and therefore, the address from the unit was shifted to the new premises is deemed to have been covered in the registration certificate originally taken. He pointed out that in all the cases in hand the units had shifted to the new premises and the change of address in the certificate has to be taken from the original date of registration of the certificate.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Accura Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 August, 1991

The effective portion of the notification makes it clear that the exemption is extended to "a manufacturer from one or more factories" a reading of para 4, as can be seen before us, it does not stipulate that the change of factory address would disentitle the assessee of the exemption or automatically cancel the registration. So long as there is a clear provision for change of address to be incorporated in the certificate of registration (that has admittedly been done in all these cases) without the certificate of registration being cancelled, the certificate is deemed to be valid from its original date. The mere fact of the delay in getting the change of address incorporated in the certificate of registration that by itself would not disentitle the manufacturer from claiming the exemption. The exemption is extended to the manufacturer having one or more factories. Therefore, the mere fact that the address was not amended in the certificate before the date of shifting to the new premises, is also not the criteria for denying the exemption. The said amendment in the certificate is a mere procedural requirement. Such a change does not whittle down the exemption or make the manufacturer disentitled to the exemption. The reasoning given by the Id. Collector is correct in law. The Tribunal in the case of Accura Industries (supra) has already held that availment of an exemption notification is independent of exemption from licensing control on filing of a declaration under notification No. 111/78 or notification 2/81. It has been further held that The fact remains that the appellants were availing of the benefit of this notification 175/86 during the preceding financial year. There is also sufficient force in the Id. Consultant's plea that the scope of the expression 'availing of the exemption' occurring in proviso (b) to para 4 of the notification 175/86 reproduced above, cannot be restricted to cases where a person has filed a declaration under Notification 111/78 or 2/81. The question whether a manufacturer was availing of the exemption would depend upon whether he was liable to avail of the exemption on the basis of the conditions set out in any of the notification listed in para 4(b) These findings also support the plea of the respondents in these appeals.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1