2016 (2) TMI 1040

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant. Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants have been denied the benefit of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, which provides exemption to the clearance of the final products, which are cleared to the SEZ units. The dispute in the present appeal re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not be denied on such a procedural violation. 3. We find favour in the contention of the learned advocate. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant had not supplied the goods to the SEZ units. In such a scenario, the submission of ARE-1 triplicate copy with the Revenue within 24 hours cannot be a ground for denial of benefit. Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. v. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory and the same is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. 4. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that non-submission of ARE-1 Triplicate copy within the period of 24 hours cannot be made as a ground for denying the benefit of Notificatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X