NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved