TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory of the petitioner at Burnpur . Prior to the introduction of the new Tariff their goods were classified under Tariff Item-58 and were exempted. Since no provision was made under the new Tariff for exemption, representations were made and consequently Notification No. 281/86 dated 24-04-1986 was issued. The Notification exempts all excisable goods produced and used within the same factory or other factory of same manufacturer for repairs or maintenance of machinery. The Assistant Collector in his Order dated 29-07-1987 has come to the conclusion that the Notification refers to workshop within a factory and held that it connotes a tool-room sort of thing, where only the goods other than those which are primarily intended for manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given to the appellants prior to the introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff under Tariff Item 68. A query was raised from the Bench as to whether he was enjoying the benefit of Notification No. 118/75, the Ld. Advocate stated that they were enjoying the Notification which was meant for exemption of goods used in the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer. 2. The Ld. S.D.R., Shri K.D. Tayal, contended that the Notification refers to excisable goods manufactured in a Workshop within a factory and it cannot cover the goods manufactured in the entire factory. He stated that the term factory has been defined in the Central Excises Act, Section 2(e) as: Factory means, any premises including the prec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. In a court of Law or Equality what the legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact either in express words or by reasonable or necessary implication. and also 1979 E.L.T. (J-501) in the case of M/s. Coramandal Fertilisers Ltd. v. U.O.I, and Three Ors. Taxing Statute - Interpretation: The rules and notifications issued under Taxing Statutes are to be understood strictly and with the aid of the language employed therein. There is no scope for any element of intention of any element of speculation about intention while interpreting taxing statute. The Ld. SDR fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intenance of machinery. It is the claim of the appellants that they are making castings and further manufacturing the parts for the purpose of maintenance and repair of their machinery. There is no question of manufacture of machinery installed, but manufacture of parts for maintenance. The Revenue cannot go beyond the terms used in the notification for the purpose of assuming the intent of the notification. From the quotation cited by the Ld. SDR himself in 1978 E.L.T, (J-350) - M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas v. Asstt. Collr. of Central Excise, Supreme Court judgment specifically states that if the tax-payer is within the plain terms of an exemption, he cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
