TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extile Mills Vs. CCE [2014 (8) TMI 853 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the refund is not admissible. - Decided in favour of revenue - Appeal No. ST/721/2009-CU(DB), Appeal No. E/185/2010-EX(DB) - Final Order No. 50195-50196/2016 - Dated:- 15-1-2016 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And R. K. Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri K Poddar, DR For the Respondent : Ms Neha Meena, Adv ORDER P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax paid in respect of inputs and input services are taken into account and in any case the condition of the notification has to be strictly construed. He cited the judgement of CESTAT in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. CCE - 2015 (37) STR 410 (Tribunal - Delhi) 4. Ld. Advocate for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is covered against the assessee by the judgement of CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Notification No. 33/2008 - ST dated 07/12/2008 which expressly or by necessary implication gives it retrospective applicability. It is trite that exemption notifications being in the nature of exceptions are to be subjected to strict construction. Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. - 2015 (323) ELT 644 (SC) held that it is trite that exemption notifications are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
