9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The High Court had erred in relying upon the fact that modified eligibility certificate stood granted as it was granted pursuant to the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. Similarly, the High Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in Bharti Teletech Ltd. C.W.P. No. 11884 of 2003, in which the writ petition filed by the Department stood dismissed on the ground of laches. Therefore, in our view, both the above circumstances were irrelevant. As stated above, the High Court should have considered the matter on interpretation of rule 28A of 1975 Rules. It has not considered the said rule. It has not considered the above arguments. - Civil Appeal No. 1817 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication claiming tax benefit for an investment of Rs. 26.74 lakhs made for diversification of extending the unit to manufacture "colour monitor". The said application was allowed. Respondent was granted a new eligibility certificate on September 15, 1997 entitling it to avail the benefit of exemption from sales tax to the extent of Rs. 122.85 lakhs for the period commencing from December 15, 1995 to December 14, 2001. On February 1, 1998, however, the respondent submitted an application requesting for insertion of "colour monitor" in the earlier eligibility certificate dated February 23, 1995. By order dated October 11, 1999 the competent authority rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision under rule 28A author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case, the High Court was concerned with interpretation of the above rule. It was not concerned with interpretation of a notification. Be that as it may, it is well-settled, that, in a matter of exemption the rule/ notification is required to be interpreted strictly. The question raised by the department before the High Court was that the above rule confines the certificate of eligibility to the manufacture of the same product. Before the High Court, inter alia, it was contended that expansion/diversification of industrial unit meant creation of additional manufacturing facility for the manufacture of the same product (monochrome monitors). That, there was no scope for addition of colour monitor in the existing eligibility certificate dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period. In this case, the High Court has primarily proceeded to dismiss the department's writ petition on the ground that it had already issued modified eligibility certificate in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal. Secondly, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of its earlier judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bharti Teletech Ltd., Gurgaon in C.W.P. No. 11884 of 2003. In our view, the High Court had erred in relying upon the fact that modified eligibility certificate stood granted as it was granted pursuant to the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. Similarly, the High Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in Bharti Teletech Ltd. C.W.P. No. 11884 of 2003, in which the writ petition filed by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
