Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 103 - AT - CustomsBenefit of Notification No. 21/2002 - Assesse setup Petroleum Refinery and imported mobile cranes and claim concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002 – The Revenue had denied the benefit of the Notification that the cranes do not stand specifically covered under any of the entries in list 17 - On the other hand the appellants had staked their claim under entries 44 & 45 - Held that:- Keeping in view the various entries of the Notification and the long list of goods specified and the purport and object Notification seeks to achieve - the restrictive meaning given by the authorities below can not be upheld – order set aside – Relying upon Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Gujarat v. Reliance Petroleum Limited [2008 (5) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT] - the object of grant of Notification shall be considered in a broad based manner. The words used therein have to be given its natural meaning, the purpose must be allowed to be achieved. The words “all types of materials” should be construed widely. It was not only the items imported for initial setting up of Refinery, which had to be extended the benefit of the Notification but the goods required for running and maintenance of the refinery would also get covered - The purpose for which the exemption was granted must be considered in its entirety - The purpose of grant for exemption cannot be lost sight of - The Central Government must be held to be aware if not for the equipment itself but about the nature which would be required for setting up a Crude Oil Refinery - an exemption Notification should be construed directly but it was also well settled that interpretation of an exemption Notification would depend upon the nature and extent thereof - The terminologies used in the Notification would have an important role to play. Where the exemption Notification ex facie applies, there was no reason as to why the purport thereof would be limited by giving a strict construction thereto – Decided in favor of assesse. Dissenting opinion – Member (Technical) was of the opposing view and delivered the separate judgement – but the Third Member was of the opinion as to the Member (Judicial) – Thus majority Decision was into the favor of assesse.
|