Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 608 - AT - Central ExciseInterpretation of statute - whether the phrase intended for storage of agricultural produce can be interpreted as intended for exclusive storage of agricultural produce only? - Held that: - The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. [1987 (11) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] had gone into the interpretation of the term for use and had concluded that the term only means intended for use and that if the legislative intent was to allow exemption on actual use, the words goods actually used or goods used would have been incorporated - However, analogously applying the ratio therein to the facts of the present appeal, the term intended to be used should not be interpreted as intended to be used only or intended to be used exclusively. The tenor and language of the relevant notification entry and condition certainly do not that carry any such rigidity. As long as the goods are used for the intended purpose, in this case, that of storage of agricultural produce, the notification benefit cannot be denied. Storage of a small quantity of non-farm produce, along with the agricultural produce, cannot result in cancellation of the notification. It is not in dispute that the impugned goods were not used for storing agricultural produce, or for that matter, that only non-agricultural produce was stored therein - the appellant has not fallen foul of the notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|