TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uake devastated area, where it was used. They had obtained duty paid cement from the manufacturers M/s. ACC Ltd., Wadi under the jurisdiction of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Gulbarga. They filed a refund claim for the duty of Rs. 4,25,205/- on cement so used. There was a time lag in the issue of Notification No. 97/93, dated 19-10-1993 and its amendments Notification No. 128/94 dated 7-9-1994 and its actual receipt by M/s. ACC Ltd. and by the appellants. 3. They applied for the refund of duty borne, suffered by them to the Assistant Collector, Gulbarga in whose jurisdiction Wadi factory is located. The Assistant Collector admitted the claim in his appeal and a S.C.N. dated 31-3-1995 was issued to the appellants as to why the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition in the Notification 128/94, dated 7-9-1994 reads - (i) that it is certified by the manufacturers of such goods on the relevant clearance documents that the goods are intended to be donated for the relief and rehabilation of the people affected by the earthquake in the said states without making any charge thereof. A plain reading of the same, indicates to us, that such an endorsement is required to be made only when no charge for the goods have been made. In the case before us, the appellant has paid for the goods i.e. Cement. This payment is for cost of goods purchased which are also exempted from duty by the notification, and such goods will obviously would be charged for and the endorsement as required cannot be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase of goods applying for and obtaining the refund when he can satisfy that the burden of duty has been borne by him alone. Such a person can apply within six months of his purchase... This finding of law would be defeated, if one interprets that the notification benefit in the manner, as arrived at by the lower authority. The exemption has been granted on the grounds of hardships undergone by the people due to a Major Calamity and require relief. Such noble intentions cannot be ignored in favour of procedural requirements; we find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Swedesi Polytex 1989 (44) E.L.T. 794 (S.C.) had held that in a fiscal exemption notification should not be given by a circutous process of interpretation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the goods have not been sent directly from the factory but from the Depot we find that the notification provides for the goods to be sent directly from the factory or warehouse. The notification permits the goods to be sent to be cleared from the factory without payment of duty if no charges are made for such supplies it also exempts goods purchased from Cash Donations (i.e. when costs for the goods are charged by a manufacturer) to be duty exempted ; even if such supply is ex-ware house ; which in the facts of this case, to our mind cannot be restricted to a warehouse ; as defined under Rule 2 (XV) to be only appointed place, registered only under Rule 140 of the Central Excise Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
