Case Law Details
SAC Industry Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
The tenor of the Show Cause Notices, inter alia, that the name of the Women’s Society does not figure in any of the statutory documents, does not figure in the website of Sabari Soaps, that the labels and packing do not contain the name of the Women’s Society, etc., are the reasons for denying the benefit of the Notification No. 88/88-C.E. We have seen the primary evidences / documents like registration certificate under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, certificate issued by the Tehasildar, etc., and by these alone we are satisfied that the appellant is a society, and is located in the rural area. To be specific, the appellant is registered as a cooperative society in the rural area, which is manufacturing one of the goods which is described in the table given in the Notification ibid., namely, “laundry and carbolic soaps” and thereby, the appellant satisfies the primary condition.
The Women’s Society comes under the inclusive clause “including women’s societies” and by this, we find that the appellant has even satisfied the inclusive part of the definition as well.By these, we can safely conclude that the denial of benefit of exemption is patently wrong and unsustainable.
We are surprised to note that when the appellant is focussing on achieving its objective by keeping a low profile, the allegations in the Show Cause Notices, which tantamount to publicity, is not the requirement of the Notification and to deny a benefit consequently, is arbitrary and unsustainable. When primary documents issued by Government agencies like the certificate of registration under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, certificate of the Village Officer and that of the Tehasildar speak for themselves, we do not need more than these basic documents to establish the status or location of the appellant. Unfortunately, only grave allegations are made, but no supporting documentary evidence is relied upon by the authority who issued the Show Cause Notice. From the impugned order also, we do not see any contrary findings based on any supporting material piece of evidence, to demolish the contentions of the appellant, which are duly supported by concrete evidences.
Insofar as the decisions/case-law relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the appellant, we see that they are very much in support of the appellant‟s claim as well.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
