All. HC: Police Protection Ordered for a Man Involved in a Live-in Relationship With a Transwoman  ||  Del. HC: Donor/Recipient to be Informed Via WhatsApp/Email about Deficie. in Organ Transplant Docs.  ||  All. HC: Juris. While Dealing With S.34 App. Can’t be Disputed by Party Filing S.9 App. in One Court  ||  SC: Can’t Deny Permanent Status to Workmen Who Worked Without Interruption for 480 Days in 24 Months  ||  SC: Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren's Withdraws Petition Challenging His Arrest by ED  ||  Del. HC Quashes Order Upholding Arbitral Award Directing SpiceJet to Pay ?270 Cr. to Kalanithi Maran  ||  Ker. HC: Right of Accused to Seek Speedy Testing of Seized Drugs/Substances Under NDPS Rules, 2022  ||  P&H HC: Conviction of Wife for Killing Minor Son Amounts to Cruelty; Grant of Divorce Upheld  ||  Supreme Court: If the Presence of Litigant is Required, Courts Should Allow Them to Appear Virtually  ||  SC: PwD Allowed to Attend Interview if They Have Got Minimum Marks Prescribed For SC/ST Categories    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved