9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns have to be interpreted, stricto sensu. The question of law raised in this appeal is answered against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent - appeal dismissed. - SERTA 30/2016 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2020 - CHIEF JUSTICE MR. C.HARI SHANKAR J. Appellant Through: Ms. Anjali Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Jitendra Singh, Ms.Vipasha Srivastava, Advs. Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, SSC with Mr.Aman Rewaria, Ms. Vipasha Mishra, Advs. JUDGMENT D.N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral) 1. This Appeal has been preferred under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter the Act ) read with Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, by the Appellant M/s Kultar Exports through its partner, Sh. Kultar Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in the Schedule providing for exemption on taxable services of a commission agent located outside India obtained by an exporter in India for sale of goods, claimed refund as per exemption under S. No. 15 of the said notification. 5. The application of the Appellant was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) vide Order dated 28th January, 2011, holding that apart from not having submitted the requisite documents as stated in the aforesaid notification, No. 41/2007-ST, the appellant s claim was time barred as having not been submitted within the prescribed period of six months from the end of the relevant quarter when the goods have said to have been exported. The Assistant Commissioner noted that the Appellant had failed to f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with and thus, the Appellants claim cannot be denied. 12. Ms. Anjali Gupta contends that substantial benefit cannot be denied on the ground of mere technical breaches. She places reliance on Formica India v. Collector of Central Excise 1995 (77) ELT 0511. 13. Moreover, the counsel contends that the Appellant s claim should not be disallowed merely because of the non-compliance of technical grounds when the Appellant has complied with the substantial requirements of the Notification No. 41/2007-ST. 14. Per contra, Mr. Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent has argued the Notification has to be treated as part of the Statute in light of the judgements of the Hon ble Supreme Court, and must be strictly interprete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guage of the notification must be given effect to. By way of an interpretation or construction, the Court cannot add or substitute any word while construing the notification either to grant or deny exemption. The Courts are also not expected to stretch the words of notification or add or subtract words in order to grant or deny the benefit of exemption notification. In Bombay Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. CCE - (1995) Supp (2) SCC 646, a three Judge Bench of this Court held that an exemption notification should be construed strictly, but once an article is found to satisfy the test by which it falls in the notification, then it cannot be excluded from it by construing such notification narrowly 19. Therefore, the clause 2 (e) of the Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
