9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Dispute regarding concessional assessment of Air-Conditioners received by the appellants under Notification No. 56/78, dated 1-3-1978.
Comprehensive Details: 1. The dispute arose concerning the requirement to inform the Central Excise officer within one month of clearance that the air-conditioners are being used in the hospital as per the conditions of Notification No. 56/78. The Judicial Member and Vice President found substantive compliance by the appellants with the notification's conditions, despite procedural delays. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions. The reference was made to this Larger Bench in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and previous Tribunal rulings. 2. The Counsel for the appellants requested an adjournment due to difficulties in locating relevant papers, but it was not granted. The learned CDR and Intervener presented arguments citing Supreme Court decisions and Tribunal rulings on the strict interpretation of exemption notifications. 3. The learned CDR emphasized that exemption notifications should be strictly construed at the eligibility stage, with any doubt benefiting the State. Referring to previous cases, he argued for a strict interpretation in favor of the Revenue, citing the decision in Jyoti Ltd.'s case. 4. The Supreme Court's rulings in various cases, including Novopan India Ltd., Wood Paper Ltd., and Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., were discussed. The Court's stance on the interpretation of exemption notifications was highlighted, emphasizing the need for strict construction at the eligibility stage and a liberal approach once eligibility is established. 5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had satisfied the substantive requirements of using the air-conditioners in an approved establishment, with procedural issues being secondary. The reference was answered in favor of the appellants, aligning with the Supreme Court's rulings on the strict and liberal construction of exemption notifications. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jyoti Ltd. was not followed, as it was deemed contrary to the Supreme Court's guidance on notification interpretation.
|
