9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in Nos. 1105 to 1132 of 2006, dated 29-11-2006 in E/609/2003 covering as many as ten assessees. The following are the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee :- 1. Whether the interpretation of the terms of the exemption Notification No. 41/99-CE by the Tribunal is correct? 2. Whether the undertakin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sary, is only a 'procedural requirement' or an 'eligibility criteria' for the benefit of the exemption? 6. Whether the principles of interpretation of an exemption notification (1) strict and not liberal, and (2) adopting a view in favour of the Revenue, have been modified by the later decisions of the Supreme Court? 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t an undertaking had, in fact, been sent supported by the certificate of posting, which was raised as a counterclaim before the commissioner, and was omitted to be dealt with by the CCE (Appeals)? 2. The claim of the assessee was with reference to the appeal relates to the fact of the Notification No. 41/99-C.E. granting exemption from the whole of the duty of excise leviable under Section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption [2008 (221) E.L.T. A28 (S.C.)]. Thus, the Apex Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the assessee's case. 5. Applying the said decision of the Apex Court, we reject the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the assessee, thereby, confirming the order of the Customs, Excise and Tribunal. Consequently the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
