Exemption Application For Manufacturing And: Fill & Download for Free

Export is not exempt under GST but it is considered as zero rated supply so no Output Tax Liabilty will emerge in case of Exports but one can claim Input Tax Credit on input which is used for manufacturing of goods to be exported in future.

When the Manufacturer Exports his goods to Foreign country, Excise duty is nil. The same continues in GST also.

Gun manufacturers are not exempt from manufacturing safety standards, as Remington recently demonstrates:Remington Trigger Class Action SettlementThe trigger was deemed faulty by a court, and Remington is required to fix it and pay out a settlement to those affected.(Due to some conversation on another answer I am clarifying the above statement. Remington did not actually lose the lawsuit, they agreed to settle. The trigger recall was part of the settlement, and Remington still stands by the safety of the device. Nevertheless the point still stands that manufacturers are responsible for the safety of their products, which is the only point relevant to this answer.)What would make you think that is not the case?The Trace: Cars, Toys and Aspirin Must Meet Mandatory Safety Standards. Guns Do Not.Oh, there is your problem, you are getting your news from lying partisan hacks.I am not going to quote the entire article, but lets take some of the claims piece by piece:No federal agency oversees how firearms are designed or built.False; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive regulates firearms manufacture and sale in compliance with all applicable laws, most notable the NFA (and subsequent Hughes Amendment) as well as sales and export laws. For reference, hear is a 240+ page summary of only federal gun laws: www.atf.gov-Gun Laws Summary (hat tip Paul Harding). Please note that does not include any state specific laws.Gun manufacturers have operated without federal oversight for decades. When the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was created by Congress in 1972 to set safety standards for most consumer products, firearms were specifically excluded from CPSC’s jurisdiction.This is deliberately misleading. The article is written in such a way to lead you to believe all consumer products fall under the purview of the CPSC, when they do not. Take this quote from the beginning of the article: “Obama noted that automobile regulations such as seat belts and airbags have reduced traffic fatalities, …”. But cars are not regulated by the CPSC, they are regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a separate governmental agency mentioned nowhere in this article. Firearms were likewise exempted from the CPSC because (as mentioned above) there was another agency already tasked with their oversight.With the federal government boxed out, gun safety standards are set by a trade organization called the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute.Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Yes, it is true that the BATFE does not oversee technical specifications for firearms beyond what is specified in law. Many aspects of firearms technical designs are left up to industry self regulation. This is actually not much different than many technical aspects of other manufactured goods. For example, electric motor manufacture (yes, even for those found in goods covered by the CPSC) are regulated by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, a trade group for such companies. Similarly the American Society of Mechanical Engineers covers many aspects of mechanical and industrial devices, like pressure vessels and elevators. Given these precedents, and given that firearms are almost purely mechanical devices, such industry self regulation is not unusual. Most such industries avoid government intrusion into their regulatory space so long as there are no egregious safety violations by member companies. So far the firearms industry has a pretty good track record in this regard.Parents might air their ideas about how to make monkey bars safer to an ANSI group that monitors playground equipment, for instance. But SAAMI doesn’t ask gun owners how to improve safety features on firearms.This is because SAAMI uses a different methodology than other organizations. Customers go to manufacturers, and manufacturers take those desired standards to SAAMI. This is not wrong, it is just different. Reading between the lines, what this author might be complaining about is that non-customers cannot spam SAAMI with useless and trivial complaints designed to throw a wrench into gun manufacturing standards in order to adversely affect the marketplace, but that is admittedly pure speculation on my part. But either way, do you want to impact gun manufacturing standards? Let manufactures know what you want to see and vote with your wallet. If it is actually a good and useful improvement it will get adopted into a standard.(SAAMI did not reply to multiple requests for comment.)Of course not. Why would they reply to an organization know to twist words, falsify information and omit inconvenient facts? This was just plain smart on the part of SAAMI.With firearms uniquely exempt from federal safety regulations, the American gun market has been flooded with thousands of defective weapons.This is false.Saturday Night Specials of the 1970s and the so-called “junk guns” of the 1980s and early ’90s were notorious for malfunctioning.No, they were “notorious” for being cheap enough for poor people to own. These guns mostly followed and met the safety standards of the day and were comparable in function (if not quality) to police guns of the era. Yes, there were some manufactures who produced genuinely unsafe guns even by the standards of the day, but these manufactures quickly went out of business due to poor reputation, without the need for regulatory intervention.The article goes on to mention a few more modern cases of lawsuits against manufactures, none of which are out of the ordinary even for highly regulated industries, and also mentions some states that have their own testing standards for guns sold within their borders. What the article does not do is mention accident statistics for firearms, which would seem to be highly relevant to the topic at hand. Take the very last line in the article:“Of course you should hope gun owners act prudently and kindly,” he says. “But if you can save lives by changing gun designs, then you should do that, too.”How many lives could be save by “changing gun designs”? I assume he is talking about accidental deaths here, specifically accidental deaths due to poor design, and not due to user negligence. Well, in the U.S. accidental firearms deaths hover between 400 and 500 a year. That is a total for the entire nation which owns 350,000,000 guns (give or take a few tens of millions). Even assuming every single one of those deaths was from faulty design and none were due to careless use, that is still a failure rate, per owned gun, of 0.00001%. Lets throw in accidental injury into the mix, of which there are, at best guess, 3000 a year (we are left to guessing, because the accidental injury rate for firearms is so low that is does not meet the CDC threshold for tracking), That only gets us to a failure rate of 0.0001% (for both injury and death).Given those numbers suddenly this whole article seems like much ado about nothing. The shooting sports are among the safest sports anyone could participate in, with a lower accident rate than baseball. When you factor out deliberate acts like suicide and homicide firearms give the 5 gallon bucked a run for its money with regard to safety. Does that sound like an industry in desperate need of regulation? Or is this article aimed at people who want to destroy the gun owning culture, and is willing to grasp at any and all threads that could be used to further that goal, regardless of the facts?But credit where credit is due, the article does not mention the PLCAA, so I at least did not have to dedicate whole paragraphs to that red herring. I would count that as a victory, but I am sure you can find a bunch of false information about that elsewhere on that site.