9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Explanation-II to N/N. 14/2002-C.E., creating fiction of ‘Deemed duty paid’, becomes relevant and has to be harmoniously read with the conditions prescribed under N/N. 14/2002-C.E. It is also a well accepted judicial discipline that if two interpretations of a statute are possible then the one more favourable to the tax payer should be taken - the assessee is entitled for benefit of exemption under N/N. 14-15/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/3375/2006, E/101/2007 - A/61821-61822/2016-EX[DB] - Dated:- 27-12-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Amrinder Singh, Sh. R.C. Gupta, Advocates- for the appellant Sh. Atul Handa, Sh. R.K. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsequently, it was proposed to demand duty on the goods exported. * The OIO dated 07.07.2005 confirmed the demand, however recalculated the demand of according cum-duty benefit. The Adjudicating Authority relied on the judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in CCE, Vadodara V. Dhiren Chemical Industries, 2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC). The OIA upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and confirmed the demand, which has been challenged by way of the present appeal. 2. The matter was adjudicated, the demand of duty was confirmed after giving benefit cum duty. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. E/101/2007 3. The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 4. The brief facts of the case are that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that the said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Arora Knit Fabrics Pvt. Ltd . in Appeal No. E/1343/2005 dated 20.05.2016 vide Final Order No. 60115/2016 relying on the decision of Larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Arvind Products Ltd. reported in 2014 (310) ELT 515 (Tri. LB) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: Para 4 Shri. P.M. Dave (Advocate) argued that Revenue is of the view that benefit of Sr. No. 12 of exemption notification no. 14/2002-CE is not admissible as appropriate duty has not been paid on the grey fabrics as per judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vadodara V. Dhiren Chemical Industries (2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC) . Learned Advocate strongly contended that Revenue s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present appeals as neither a legal fiction of deemed duty paid nor the words red with any notification for the time being in force were used in Notification No. 185/83-CE., interpreted by the Hon ble Apex Court in Dhiren Chemical Industries Case. That underlying concept of avoiding cascading effect will be defeated if exemption is denied at Sr. No. 12 as per the interpretation of the Revenue. That condition No. 3 of Notification No. 14/2002-CE was amended under Notification No. 3/2003-CE dated 06.01.2003, where duty paid words were not existing. It was his case that amendment carried out under Notification No. 3/2003-CE., is retrospective in view of the following case laws:- (i) Allied Motors pvt. Ltd. (1997 (3) SCC (472)) (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it must be taken to its logical conclusion ( Union of India V. Jalyan Udyog (1994) 1 SCC 318 = 1993 (68) ELT 9 (SC). 16. It would be pertinent to mention here that Condition No. 3 which uses the words read with any notification for the time being in force was put in place to overcome the interpretation that was given by this Court in Dhiren Chemical Industries Case. 17. Learned Counsel for the assesses has brought to our notice another pertinent development. He submitted that because of conflicting views of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal which has answered the reference by detailed judgment rendered on 29.10.2014 (2014 (310) ELT 515 (Tri. LB)), accepting the plea of the assesses a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
