9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds back to be original notification by which the respondent was entitled to the benefit of these notifications. It is pertinent to reproduce the findings recorded in para no. 13 in the case of Madhu Sudan Mittal [[ 2022 (9) TMI 1006 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] ] where it was held that it is evident that both the amendments, i.e., amendment dated 1-3-2016 and 6-6-2016, are by way of substitution. Since, both the amendments are by way of substitution and the amendment by way of substitution relates back to the original document, as has been held by Hon ble Apex Court in GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VERSUS INDIAN TOBACCO ASSOCIATION [ 2005 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT ] , both the amendments by way of substitution of the provision as contained in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent filed a letter dated 13.08.2004 declaring that they are entitled to avail area based exemption under Notification No. 49/50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. In the said declaration, the respondent stated that they have made substantial expansion of plant and machinery and thereby increased the installed capacity by more than 25% which entitles them to the benefit of the said notification. In support of their claim, they have also submitted the required documents in the form of a certificate dated 17.08.2004 issued by the chartered engineer and also a certificate issued by the chartered accountant indicating that the value of addition of plant and machinery installed for substantial expansion has been shown in their books of accounts. Certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that This Notification shall come into force on the 1st day of October, 2005 . She further submits that by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that it has retrospective effect. She also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Court as the facts of filing of appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner were not before the Hon ble High Court. She also submits that it is well settled position of law that exemption notification should be construed strictly and that no extended meaning can be given to exempted item to enlarge the scope of exemption granted by the notification as held in various decisions cited below: (a) Excon Bldg. Material Mfg. Company Pvt Ltd vs. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following decisions: (i) Madhu Sudan Mittal vs. UOI (2023) 2 CENTEX 307 (Jhar.) (ii) Mehler Engineered Products India Pvt Ltd vs. UOI 2018 (364) ELT 27 (Mad.) (iii) Commissioner of CE ST, Bangalore vs. Fosroc Chemicals India Pvt Ltd 2015 (318) ELT 240 (Kar.) 6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and perusing the material on record and the various decisions relied upon by both the parties, we find that both the authorities below have held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 read with Notification No. 34/2005 dated 30.09.2005. The only issue to be decided by us in the present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provision as contained in the original notification will be deemed to have applicable with effect from the date of notification dated 20.06.2012. Similarly, the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Mehler Engineered Products India Pvt Ltd (supra) has held as under : 9.5 In the case of Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) while dealing with the exemption notification which was issued by way of substitution, it was held as follows :- 15. The word substitute ordinarily would mean to put (one) in place of another or to replace . In Black s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition at page 1281, the word substitute has been defined to mean to put in the place of another pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -10-2015 shall be 5402 47 for all purpose and it shall be so with effect from 21-10-2015. Further the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of CE ST, Bangalore vs. Fosroc Chemicals India Pvt Ltd (supra) has observed in para 13 as under : 13. As the said amendment is clarificatory in nature, that is the reason why it was brought by way of substitution . The effect of the said substitution is that the cenvat Rules 2004 are to be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into the Rules of 2004 with pen and ink and the words to a developer of the SEZ for their authorized operation was there from the inception. Further, we do not dispute the settled principle that exemption notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
