Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 1538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... November, 2010. It s matter of record that the EOT cranes sold by the appellant were meant for the Amrawati Power Projects. The perusal of the documents make it clear that the goods were meant for setting above Mega Power Project and the necessary undertaking as required under condition no. 28 of the exemption Notification no. 31/2010 dated 28th July, 2010 has been complied with. The appellant have complied with condition no. 28 of the exemption Notification and they are entitled for refund of the Central Excise Duty. Reliance also placed upon the Hon ble Supreme Court Decision in case of the M/S BONANZA ENGINEERING CHEMICAL PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2012 (3) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that ' merel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Sr. No. 28 of the Notification No. 31/2010 dated 28th July, 2010. 3. The department has rejected the refund claim of the appellant observing that the appellant have failed to fulfill the conditions has provided under Sr. No. 28 of exemption Notification No. 31/2010-CE dated 28th July, 2010. The matter has reached up to the level of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has also found that the appellants are not entitled for the refund of the Central Excise Duty paid by them on clearance of EOT cranes supplied to Amrawati Mega Power Project. 4. We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant who has taken me through the record of the appeal and had shown that the appellants have fully complied with the condition No. 28 of the Notif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ition No. Conditions 28 (a) such goods are exempted from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India: (b) an officer not below the rank of Chief engineer in the Central Electricity Authority certifies that the said goods are required for the setting up of the said mega power project under Government of India initiative, indicating the quantity, description, and specification thereof, and (c) the Chief executive officer of the project furnishes an undertaking to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having juri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1/2010 dated 28th July, 2010 has been complied with. I am satisfied that appellant have complied with condition no. 28 of the exemption Notification and they are entitled for refund of the Central Excise Duty. I also rely upon the Hon ble Supreme Court Decision in case of the Bonanzo Engineering Chemicals Pvt Ltd VS. Commissioner of Central Excise reported under 2012 (277) ELT 145 (SC). 13. The sum and substance of the reasoning of the Tribunal appears to be that merely because the assessee has paid the excess duty on those items which he was not supposed to pay in view of the exemption notification dated 01-03 -1988 and merely because the assessee has not claimed the refund of the excess duty paid that amount paid by him under the Notifica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n exemption provision are to be invoked at different stages of interpreting it. When the question is whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clause then it being in nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject but once ambiguity or doubt about applicability is lifted and the subject falls in the notification then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction. 5. A construction which results in inequitable results and is incongruous, has to be avoided. 15. In Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 642, this Court while explaining the nature of the exemption notification and also the manner in which it should be interpreted has hel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates