(1.) The present petition falls within a narrow compass. Notwithstanding the several grounds urged on behalf of the respondent Goods and Services Tax Authorities, the real answer to the issue raised depends on the interpretation of a previous order of this Court of February 26, 2021 between the same parties.
(2.) Prior to the issuance of notification No.30/2008-C.E. of June 10, 2008, manufacturers of goods and service providers in the North-East were governed by notification No.20/2007-C.E. In effect, the previous notification exempted the Central excise component for the manufacturers of goods and service providers in the North-East region. This total exemption regime was altered by the notification of June 10, 2008 that, in effect, exempted the value added component and not the entirety of the Central excise component.
(3.) The relevant notification described the goods in one of the columns and provided a flat rate of deemed value addition in respect of such goods. However, the relevant notification also permitted a manufacturer to not avail of the rate specified in the table set out in the notification and to apply to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fixation of a special rate representing the actual value addition in respect of any goods manufactured and cleared under the notification, if the manufacturer found that the actual value addition in the production or manufacture of the said goods was at least 115 per cent of the rate specified in the table. For such purpose, the notification stipulated that the manufacturer had to make an application in writing to the jurisdictional Commissioner not later than September, 30 of the financial year for determination of such special rate, stating all the relevant facts including the proportion in which the material or components were used in the production or manufacture of the relevant goods. A proviso to the relevant paragraph in the notification permitted the jurisdictional Commissioner to extend the time for making the application by a period of 30 days.