9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed Representative ORDER Per: P.K. Das 1. None appears on behalf of the Respondents. There is no application for adjournment. 2. After hearing the ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Man Made Processed Knitted Fabrics, classifiable under sub-heading No.6002.93 of the Schedule to the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the Revenue, the Appellants had not fulfilled the Condition No.5 on the unprocessed fabrics out of which the goods manufactured were exempted from payment of duty in terms of Sr.No.1 of the Table of the said notification and therefore, no duty was paid on input. 5. We find that Explanation-II of the said notification provides for the purpose of condition specified in the said notification, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t seeks to achieve. It was also laid in this judgment that an expression used in a statute should be given its ordinary meaning unless that meaning leads to anomalous or absurd situation. If the interpretation meant by the Revenue is accepted then every alternate stage of processing will be required to be taxed by virtue of Section 2(f) (ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Chapter note 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the tax payer should be taken. 9. In view of the above observations we hold that decisions taken in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Prem Industries (supra), Simplex Mills Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) and Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Limited v. CCE (supra) were correct interpretation of exemption Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, Accordingly, benefit of Sr. No. 12 of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
