Calcutta HC: In Framing Arbitration Agreement Words Used Must be Certain, Definite  ||  J&K HC: Can’t Evaluate Performance of Employee When on Sanctioned Leave During Covid  ||  Kerala HC: Public Paying Toll Fees Casts Responsibility on NHAI to Ensure Smooth Traffic  ||  Calc. HC: Writ Court Rejecting Claims Over Disputed Issues Doesn’t Bar Arbitration if Clause Exists  ||  Gujarat HC Notifies Revised SOP for Virtual/Hybrid Hearing of Cases  ||  Kerala HC: Mere Assessment of Mental Illness by Referring to Mental Health Board Won’t Serve Purpose  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Validity of 7th proviso inserted in S. 2(b) of Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act  ||  SC to Suspend Operation of Committee Under UP Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025  ||  SC Recalls Direction to Remove Allahabad HC Judge from Criminal Jurisdiction after CJI’s Request  ||  Supreme Court: Enforcement Directorate Cannot Act Like a "Crook"    

CCE And ST vs. Pee Ell Alloys Pvt. Ltd. - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (21 Dec 2023)

Exemption notification has to be interpreted by taking into consideration the language of the notification which has to be given its due effect

MANU/CJ/0147/2023

Excise

The Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Silicon, Calcium with Carbide and Ferro Chrome. They requested that they intend to avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 6th February, 2010 ("the notification") after undertaking expansion of their unit by making new investment by more than 25% of the existing value of plant & Machinery after 6th February, 2010. In support of their claim, they placed on records the copies of requisite documents with regard to installation of additional machinery and approvals granted by the DIC Jammu.

The adjudicating Authority after going through the case records accepted the said expansion by way of increase by not less than 25% in the installed capacity of the unit as per provisions of the said notification w.e.f. 24.3.2012 i.e. date of production from expanded capacity. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the adjudicating authority revenue has filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal.

The purpose stipulated in para 8(b)(i) of expansion of capacity means expansion of capacity of the existing product or diversification from the existing product. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7(i) has observed that exemption notification has to be interpreted by taking into consideration, the language of the notification which has to be given its due effect. If the tax payer falls within the plain terms of the exemption, it cannot be denied its benefit by calling any aid a supposed intention of the exempting authority.

There is catena of judgments that the reading of the Notification cannot be done in the manner, so as to give a narrow and restricted meaning. It is well settled that the interpretation of the Notification should not be done in such a way as to make the notification otiose or nugatory.In view of interpretation of the notification,Respondents are entitled to the benefit of the said notification. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : NOTIFICATION   BENEFIT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved