PNB fraud due to failure of internal control, says RBI.:      Celeb jeweller Nirav Modi named in PNB’s $1.77-b fraud. Bank suspends 10 officers, lodges complaint with CBI; more banks may be hit. :      Bombay High Court in a hearing on 6th Feb, 2018 says GST regime is not user friendly. :      GST Network Chairman Ajay Bhushan return simplification panel to meet industry this week to simplify the return filing process.:    Finance Secretary Hasmukh Adhia said the Government stares at a Rs 50,000 crore GST revenue shortfall in the current fiscal. :    E-Way Bill which was to be rolled-out on 1st Feb is deferred to month-end due to technical glitches.:      TN raked in 22% more GST at Rs 23,318 crore between Jul-Dec 2017, against Rs 19,018 crore under VAT in the corresponding period the previous year. :      MoS,Corp Affairs PP Chaudhary says in Rajya Sabha that Govt has detected GST evasion of Rs 5.70 Crores in 16 cases during Jul-Nov 2017 - 6th Feb 2018. :      FM, Arun Jaitley says that States are not in favour of bringing the petroleum products under GST. :      The Finance Secretary, Hasmukh Adhia says out of 7 lakh tax payers who opted for composition scheme 5 lakhs had a turnover less than Rs 5 lakhs pa, though the exemption limit is upto Rs 20 lakhs. :     

CESTAT Chennai : M/s. Mayur Textile Processors Vs. CCE, Salem : 15th March, 2017 Featured

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

E/657/2005
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 115/2005-CE (SLM) dated 29.6.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)

M/s. Mayur Textile Processors
Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Salem
Respondent

Appearance
Shri Raghavendra B Hanyer, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member

Date of Hearing / Decision: 15.03.2017


FINAL ORDER No. 40502 / 2017

Per D.N. Panda

Appellant says that the demand arose during the transition period of withdrawal of the notification benefit which was again reintroduced. Such reintroduction cannot be construed to be prospective.


2. The Notifications in question are Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001, Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 and as further amended by Notification No. 47/2002-CE dated 6.9.2002. He relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Government of India Vs. Indian Tobacco Association reported in 2005 (187) ELT 162 (SC) to submit that in absence of express provision in the reintroduced notification, the interregnum period is not barred to be granted exemption benefit what that was granted by earlier notification..


3. We make it clear that what was the grant in the past, if not denied by subsequent notification through express provision contained therein, the previous grant is not deniable for the reason that the law as that was in force on the date of the lis shall govern the proceedings till its end. We may state that following above said apex Court judgment, Tribunal has extended the benefit in the case of Needle Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem reported in 2016 (41) STR 641 (Tri.  Chennai) holding that the grant of the previous notification being same by the reintroduced notification, interregnum period is equally entitled to the said grant.


4. In the result, appeal is allowed for the aforesaid reasoning.


(Dictated and pronounced in open court)


(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR)             (D.N. PANDA)
Technical Member                 Judicial Member


Rex

Additional Info

  • Date Range: Wednesday, 15 March 2017
  • Court/Authority: CESTAT
  • Tax Type: Central Excise
  • Petitioner/Appellant: M/s. Mayur Textile Processors Vs. CCE, Salem
  • Respondent: M/s. Mayur Textile Processors Vs. CCE, Salem
  • Appl no. or Appl year: E/657/2005
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • CESTAT Location: Ahmedabad
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court

Seven questions to know if you 

are paying taxes 

correctly?

If you are the CFO or the Tax Head you ought to read this. Click Here

Our Main Services 

in Indirect Taxes

 

  • Business structuring and tax planning
  • Review of end-to-end business processes for indirect taxes
  • Strategy to prevent litigation, representation and litigation support
  • Tax compliance and tax control framework
  • Support on specific issues


 

Brief update on CESTAT judgements passed during June 2016 to July 2016. Please note this update is not a summary of the cases but only leads on important issues decided. The links to the judgments are also provided for the full text.

Click here for update

Go to top