9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 88/94 on the ground that the said item, Silane treated glass fabric was imported for use in the manufacture of copper clad laminates. The assessment were so made. However, less charge demand was made by the Department on BE No. 432 of Rs. 9,32,834/- and on BE No. 10660 of Rs. 7,81,013/-. On the grounds that - Notification No. 88/94 was amended by Notification No. 197/94, dated 9-12-1994, by which, the imported item, viz. Silane Treated Glass fabric is eligible for concessional rate of duty only if it were imported for use in the manufacture of Silane treated glass fabric/cloth for use in copper clad laminates phenolic or paper phenolic or glass epoxy types, printed circuit boards . Since the importers have provided the end use cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l customs duty for the first four items, then the amendment could have deleted the first four items in Column No. 3. The fact that these items were not amended or deleted, clearly shows that the intention of the Government was not to deny the benefit to these items and continue the exemption as originally envisaged, under Notification 88/94. (iii) This absurdity required a correction which was effected within a few days by Notification No. 202/94-Cus. dated 30th December 1994. Item 13 of Notification No. 88/94 was substituted with a new entry. It substantially retained Columns 1, 2 and 3. In Column 4 the entry as it appeared in the original Notification 88/94 was reintroduced in so far as the first four items, including Silane fabrics. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machine with ( ) would have no meaning. This will make this notification unworkable, hence Tribunal rightly rejected Revenue interpretation. The notification has to be interpreted to give true import and meaning, not to make it purposeless and nugatory. (emphasis supplied). [Para 7 at Page 77] 1997 (92) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) Johnson Johnson Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. In the instant case also, we are of the opinion that the intention of the authorities was to grant exemption to certain life saving and sight saving articles manufactured in the country and once this intention is clear from the subsequent notifications issued under Section 5A of the in 1995, we do not see any reason why we should take a na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 794 (S.C.) (Ex. XIV in Appeal Memo Page 80) Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex. It is true when in a fiscal provision, if benefit of exemption is to be considered, this should be strictly considered. But the strictness of the construction of exemption notification does not mean that the full effect to the exemption notification should not be given by any circuitous process of interpretation. After all, exemption notifications are meant to be implemented.......... (at Page 85) 1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.) (Ex. X in Appeal Memo Page 64) Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. A construction which results in inequitable results, and is incongruous, has to be avoided. 2. The submission of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
