9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period to which the adjustment related had expired no permission could at all be granted. A permission of this nature was a technical requirement and could be issued making it operative from the time it was applied for - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/75003/2018 - FO/75825/2018 - Dated:- 16-4-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Appearance: Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Suptd. (AR) the Respondent (s) Per Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of industrial fan falling under Chapter-84 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. Show Cause Notice dated 08.08.2012 was issued alleging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l fans were supplied to the M/s. Infield Solar Energy Ltd. and M/s. Plastolene Polymers Pvt. Ltd. located in Falta SEZ. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that it is not in dispute that the goods were duly received in SEZ. He admitted that the appellant had sent the goods to SEZ without executing the general bond or letter of undertaking as required under Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) (supra) as amended. He further submits that the appellant being a small scale undertaking were not fully aware of the procedures to be followed. He also submits that intimation dated 25.07.2012 was filed before the Superintendent, Central Excise, Kolkata-V Commissionerate on 31.07.2012 giving all the details of the exports/supplies to the SEZ. Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant exemption only upon the satisfaction of the substantive condition of the provision and the condition in the proviso was held to be of substance embodying considerations of policy. Shri Narasimhamurthy would say the position in the present case was no different. He says that the notification of 11th August, 1975 was statutory in character and the condition as to prior permission for adjustment stipulated therein must also be held to be statutory. Such a condition must, says Counsel, be equated with the requirement of production of the declaration form in Kedarnath s case and thus understood the same consequences should ensue for the non-compliance. Shri Narasimhamurthy says that there was no way out of this situation and no adjustment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case whether a dealer has sold the specified goods to another for the purposes mentioned in the section. Therefore, presumably to achieve the two fold object, namely, prevention of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency, the exemption given is made subject to a condition that the person claiming the exemption shall furnish a declaration form in the manner prescribed under the section. The liberal construction suggested will facilitate the commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences, both of which the provisions of the said clause seek to avoid. . (Emphasis Supplied) [See: (1965) 3 SCR 626 at 630] Such is not the scope or intendment of the provisions concerned here. The main exemption is und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfilment of the purposes of the legislation. 12. Shri Narasimhamurthy against relied on certain observations in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I Anr. v. Mis. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. [1989 (1) SCC 345 = 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (S.C.)], in support of strict construction of a provision concerning exemptions. There is support of judicial opinion to the view that exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the other unexempted class of tax-payers and should be construed against the subject in case of ambiguity. It is an equally well-known principle that a person who claims an exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iberal construction (Emphasis supplied) 13. It appears to us that the view taken of the matter by the High Court does not acknowledge the essential distinction between what was a matter of form and what was one of substance. There was no other disentitling circumstance which would justify the refusal of the permission. Appellant did not have prior permission because it was withheld by the Revenue without any justification. The High Court took the view that after the period to which the adjustment related had expired no permission could at all be granted. A permission of this nature was a technical requirement and could be issued making it operative from the time it was applied for. 14. We, therefore, allow the appeal set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
