Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 439 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty and Penalty - crane parts and fabrication work classifiable under sub-heading Nos. 84313100 and 84314990 - Exemption Notification No. 108/95-C.E. dated 28-8-95 – SCN issued denying the benefit of the said notification and for demanding central excise duty - holding that the exemption is to be allowed only on production of the requisite certificate. The Apex court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. Tara Agencies reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.) had ruled that, “the intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the language used in the statute, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said.” It is true that the notification nowhere uses the expression “exclusive” with reference to the identity of the institution to whom the goods are to be supplied nor with reference to the use of the goods. However, once it is settled law that the exemption notification is to be understood as per its plain language and without any addition thereto or subtraction therefrom, by applying the principle of ascertaining legislative intention not only by looking into the words used but also from the words omitted, the absence of the word “exclusive” cannot be construed to mean that the notification can be so read that it would defeat the very purpose behind the notification nor it is permissible to enlarge the scope of the benefit under the notification. Explanation is added to any statutory provision to avoid any ambiguity arising out of the main statutory provision. The explanation cannot have existence independent of the main statutory provision. Being so, based on explanation itself, one is not entitled to enlarge the scope of the main notification more so, when the explanation is added to clarify what is stated in the main part of the notification. Prohibition of withdrawal is from the project site. But arrival of goods at the site by availing benefit under the notification has to be on supply of such goods ‘to’ the project ‘for’ the use at the project site, from where such goods cannot be withdrawn by the contractor even after completion of the project work. In other words, he cannot claim any ownership right over such goods.
|