TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the notification. There are other similar provisions with the same goal in mind. The most important and in fact the decisive words in para 2 of the Notification No.1/93-CE is that only such clearances can get exemption where the “aggregate value of the clearances of the specific goods for home consumption” is of a certain value. The provision in the main Notification No.1/93-CE as well as the amended Notification No. 59/94 have been placed in order to check this abuse. It is for this reason that we find that once the respondent had exercised to keep out of the exemption for its Sitapur unit, it cannot claim benefit of the notification for its Dehradun unit consequently the demand of the excise authorities is justified. We have no difficulty in accepting the legal proposition that fiscal laws have to be strictly interpreted. That is the settled manner of interpretation of fiscal statutes. - manufacturer could not have availed the benefit of exemption under Para (1) of the Notification No. 01/93-CE dated 28.02.1993, since it had opted to full rate of duty in a financial year in relation to its other unit. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No.04 of 2010 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 as the same is not permissible, and demanded an excise duty to the tune of ₹ 6,25,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs and twenty five thousands only), a demand which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Being aggrieved, the respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) where the order of the adjudicating authority has been set aside and later in appeal before the CESTAT the appeal has been dismissed, as already referred above. Hence, the present appeal. 8. A Division Bench of this Court has admitted the appeal on following substantial question of law:- whether a manufacture after opting to pay full rate of duty in a financial year in terms of Para 2 (i) of the Notification No. 01/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 as amended, could avail the benefit of exemption under Para 1 of the said notification? 9. Primarily, this Court has to see as to what extent the benefits of Notification No.1/93-CE dated 23.02.1993 as it stood amended on 01.03.1994 vide Notification No.59/94-CE can be availed by the respondent and whether the manner in which it has availed the benefits is permissible under the law. 10. In order to encourage sma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is the appellant s argument given the plain language of the amendment which talks about a manufacturer exercising an option and not a unit or a factory exercising this option. Therefore the appellant would argue that while forgoing exemption in respect to the Unit No. 1, the manufacturer was under a statutory obligation to pay duty at normal rate, for unit no. 2 as well, as it cannot claim exemption for Unit No. 2, as its other unit has kept itself out of the exemption. The appellant has further argued that reliance by the Tribunal on its earlier decisions are clearly misplaced as the facts particularly in the case of Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Intertec Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad, reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T.609 (Tri.-LB), were entirely different. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent Shri Pullack Raj Mullick on the other hand while defending the decision of the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) submits that fiscal laws though to be strictly interpreted, yet where two meanings are possible, the meaning which is beneficial for the assessee has to be adopted. There is nothing in the Notification No. 1/93-CE as well in the amended Notification No. 59/94-CE ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19. It is a possibility that in a given case the aggregate value of two or more units may exceeds two crores and, therefore, the manufacturer in order to get exemption may split its claim! One unit claiming exemption and the other refraining from claiming this exemption, so that, it can get benefit under the other excise schemes, such as MODVAT Credit, etc. The provision in the main Notification No.1/93-CE as well as the amended Notification No. 59/94 have been placed in order to check this abuse. It is for this reason that we find that once the respondent had exercised to keep out of the exemption for its Sitapur unit, it cannot claim benefit of the notification for its Dehradun unit consequently the demand of the excise authorities is justified. We have no difficulty in accepting the legal proposition that fiscal laws have to be strictly interpreted. That is the settled manner of interpretation of fiscal statutes. Here in particular where the respondent claims is an exemption . Now exemption clause being in nature of an exception created by law has to be strictly interpreted. It is quite another aspect that once the Court finds that the exemption is proper that a wider or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
