9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court in Dilip Kumar & Company's case [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] laying down the principle of interpretations of an exemption notification has held that When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. - thus, there cannot be any doubt that to extend the benefit of the exemption, one has to read 'pipe fittings' alongwith the word 'pipe' in the relevant entry of the said notification. Limitation - Held that:- The Ld. AR for the Revenue, at this stage, submits that some period of the demand notice falls within the normal period of limitation, whereas the Learned Advocate for the appellant in his synopsis mentioned that the period of demand is from March, 2006 to July, 2008, and the show cause notice was issued on 09/02/2010. Therefore, the entire demand was barred by limitation - To ascertain the correct position, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to compute the demand, if any, for normal period. Appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to July 2008, hence, the demand is barred by limitation. It is his contention that no fact was suppressed from the knowledge of the Department and in all the monthly ER-I Returns filed from time to time they have been meticulously disclosing clearance of pipes and pipe fittings by availing the said exemption notification. Also, the appellant have been discharging 10% of the value of the exempted pipes and pipe fittings under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 since common inputs were used in the manufacture of exempted pipes and pipe fittings and dutiable pipes & pipe fittings. It is his contention that therefore invoking larger period of limitation and also penalty under section 11AC of CEA, 1944, cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that in the exemption Notification 6/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006 there is no mention at Sr. No. 196A, the expression 'pipe fittings'. The exemption was allowed only in case of 'pipes'. It is his argument that an exemption notification should be strictly construed and the words and expressions not contained in the exemption notification, cannot be imported and read into it, by implication or by way of interpretation, In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar process or processes intended to make the water fir for human or animal consumption, but does not include a plant supplying water for industrial purposes. Nil - 47 A Condition No. Conditions 47A If, a certificate issued by the Collector/District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the plant is located, is produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, to the effect that such goods are cleared for the intended use specified in column (3) of the Table. The aforesaid entry in the Notification was succeeded by Serial no. 7 of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 which is reproduced hereunder: S. No. Chapter or heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule Description of excisable goods Rate Condition (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 196A 84 or any other Chapter The following goods, namely:- (1)All items of machinery, including instruments, apparatus and appliances, auxiliary equipment and their components/parts required for setting up of water treatment plants; (2) Pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the plant and fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the context of examining the Tariff item 26AA and residuary Tariff item 68 of the erstwhile First Schedule to Central Excise Act, 1944 held that there is no difference between pipes and pipe fittings while examining the scope of the expression "all sorts". The said interpretation in our view cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case where the issue relates to extending of the benefit of exemption notification. Thus, on merit, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner. 8. On the issue of limitation we have carefully considered the ER-I returns filed by the appellant from time to time enclosed with Appeal paper-book. In the ER-I Returns, the appellant had been meticulously reflecting the production and clearance of 'pipes' and 'pipe A-fittings' indicating the liability while discharging 10% of the value of such pipe fittings in accordance with Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, since common inputs on which credit taken were used both in the manufacture dutiable and exempted goods. We find that in the invoices enclosed with the appeal memorandum the appellants had also clearly men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
