TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... caps. - refund of the duty paid through PLA during the relevant period had not been disputed in the present case. - for the subsequent period, the adjudicating authority on de novo adjudication of order-in-original on a remand from this Tribunal had accepted the interpretation that for extending the benefit of Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, the value of caps ought to be included in the total value of Lamitubes. - refund to be allowed. - Appeal No.Ex. Ap.113/2008 - A-540/KOL/2012 - Dated:- 8-8-2012 - S K Gaule And D M Misra, JJ. Appellant Rep by: Shri S Misra, Addl.Commr (AR) Respondent Rep by: Shri B N Chattopadhyay, Consultant Per: D M Misra: 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in UOI vs. Metal Box - 1996 (87) ELT 327 (SC) and Burn Standard Co. v. UOI - 1992 (60) ELT 671 (SC) held that the value of the caps ought to be included in value of Tubes. He has observed that in the present case, the caps along with sized laminates and shoulders are placed in the machine and what comes out is a complete tube fitted with cap. Consequently he has held that refund claim is admissible on the complete Tube including value of Caps under Notification No.32/99 as claimed by the appellant. Against the said order-in-appeal the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 4. The ld.A.R. appearing for the Revenue has submitted that the ld.Commissioner has wrongly held that the value of the caps are includible in the total v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC) wherein the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. has been distinguished. 5. The ld.Consultant appearing for the respondent has submitted that the present issue relates to availability of exemption Notification No.32/99 dt.08.07.1999 and does not relate to determination of value of excisable goods, namely, Lamitubes fitted with the caps. He has submitted that the duty paid caps are purchased by them from open market and used in the automatic process of manufacture of Lamitubes and the complete product cleared by them is Lamitubes fitted with caps on which excise duty was paid by them. Further, he has submitted that the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Essel Propack's case not app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are manufacturers of Lamitubes which are used in packaging of goods, namely, cosmetics. The applicant manufactured the bare tube in their factory and purchased the caps from outside and after fitting the caps on the Lamitubes in an integrated manufacturing process cleared the Lamitubes fitted with caps on payment of duty. The Revenue has not disputed the said payment of duty but objected that benefit of Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 could not be entered to the value of caps as the said caps were not manufactured in the factory of the applicants, but procured from outside. We do not find merit in the contention of the Revenue, We find the said exemption Notification 32/99-ce dated 08.07.1999 reads as follows:- Exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Annexure appended to this notification, from so much of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise, as the case may be, leviable thereon under any of the said Acts as is equivalent [to the duty payable on value addition undertaken in the manufacture of the said goods by the said unit:] 7. On a plain reading of the said Notification, it is clear that the manufacturers situated in north-eastern region were entitled to the benefit as allowed under the said Notification on the duty leviable on the goods manufactured and cleared by them from their factory. Hence it is illogical and incorrect to allege that the Lamitubes fitted with caps were not subjected to levy of any duty but only the bare Lamitubes which were manufactured and cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. The rule regarding exemptions is that exemptions should generally be strictly interpreted but beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted. This composite rule is not stated in any particular judgment in so many words. In fact, majority of judgments emphasise that exemptions are to be strictly interpreted while some of them insist that exemptions in fiscal statutes are to be liberally interpreted giving an apparent impression that they are contradictory to each other. But this is only apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
