9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 969 - AT - Central ExciseEntitlement to area based exemption - benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 read with Notification No. 34/2005 dated 30.09.2005 - respondent s unit located at Hadbast No. 110 Khasra No. 147 - HELD THAT - Khasra Nos., on which the respondent s unit is located, have been substituted by Notification No. 34/2005-CE dated 30.09.2005 and in the said notification Hadbast Khasra Nos. 110 (1 to 418) have been substituted in place of the original Hadbast Khasra Nos. 110 (1 to 41). Since these Khasra Nos. have only been substituted and as per the settled principle of legal interpretation, substitution leads back to be original notification by which the respondent was entitled to the benefit of these notifications. It is pertinent to reproduce the findings recorded in para no. 13 in the case of Madhu Sudan Mittal 2022 (9) TMI 1006 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT where it was held that it is evident that both the amendments, i.e., amendment dated 1-3-2016 and 6-6-2016, are by way of substitution. Since, both the amendments are by way of substitution and the amendment by way of substitution relates back to the original document, as has been held by Hon ble Apex Court in GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VERSUS INDIAN TOBACCO ASSOCIATION 2005 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT , both the amendments by way of substitution of the provision as contained in the original notification will be deemed to have applicable with effect from the date of notification dated 20.06.2012. Further, the settled principle that exemption notification has to be construed strictly, is not disputed but in the present case, it is found that Notification No. 34/2005 dated 30.09.2005 which was issued by way of a substitution and the respondent s unit which was located in the said Hadbast and Khasra Nos. 110 (1 to 418) have been substituted and the Revenue Authority of the State has also clarified that the respondent is entitled to benefit of said notification. There is no force in the appeal of the Revenue - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 and Notification No. 34/2005-CE dated 30.09.2005 for availing area-based exemption under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Facts: The respondent, engaged in manufacturing Tread Rubber and Cushion Solution, claimed area-based exemption under Notification No. 49/50/2003 based on substantial plant expansion. The department disputed the claim, alleging the unit was not in the specified area. After adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the exemption. The department appealed, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the exemption, leading to the current appeal. Contentions: The Revenue argued that the impugned order failed to consider facts properly, emphasizing strict construction of exemption notifications. The respondent contended that the substitution of Khasra Nos. in Notification No. 34/2005-CE should be interpreted to grant retrospective effect to the exemption. Decision: Both authorities below upheld the respondent's entitlement to the exemption. The appellate tribunal analyzed the notifications and legal principles cited by both parties. It noted that the substitution in Notification No. 34/2005-CE should be read retrospectively, following legal precedents. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. Conclusion: The appellate tribunal, after considering all submissions and legal principles, upheld the respondent's entitlement to the exemption under the relevant notifications. By interpreting the substitution in Notification No. 34/2005-CE as retrospective, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decisions.
|
