9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic Sector Undertaking. In addition to supply to various Electricity Boards, they also export certain portion of their manufactured goods. The present dispute is related to the claim of the appellant for rebates under notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012. The dispute involves four refund claims involving export orders under Notification No. 41/2012 ST. The service tax rebates claimed which pertain to the tax paid under the category of Goods Transportation Agency for transportation of export consignment from their works at Bhopal to the port of Export. The Service tax was paid by them under the provisions of notification No. 13/2012 ST dated 20.6.2012, under reverse charge mechanism. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. This clause does not have a similar condition to the clause 3(b). Even though they had submitted before the lower authorities to grant them the benefit (alternatively) under 2(e) which grants rebates to that extent, still the lower authorities denied the rebate claim entirely. He further relied upon the several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support his arguments that notification needs to be interpreted liberally to determine the applicability in the case of an assesse but subsequently to be construed strictly while interpreting the clauses of notification. 7. To support his argument that the statute must be construed having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e should be paid inasmuch as the service of GTA has been used for export of goods by the appellant even though condition of 3(b) is against them. Their submission is that the exemption Notification is required to be construed strictly at the stage of determination whether assessee falls within its terms. But once the provision is applicable to him, full affect must be given to it. They have relied upon the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court to support the argument:- 1. UOI vs. Wood Papers Ltd. [1990 (47) ELT 500 (SC)]; 2. Novapen India Ltd. vs. CCE [1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC)]; 3. CCE vs. Malwa Industries [2009 (235) ELT 214 (SC)] 11. It is also their su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notification so as to achieve the purpose and object for which the notification has been issued. Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. Malwa Industries (supra) has held as under: "20. We, as noticed hereinbefore, have no quarrel with the proposition that exemption notification should be construed strictly which means that benefit thereof should not be granted to one, who is not entitled therefor. But it is also true that those who are entitled to the benefit cannot be deprived therefrom by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, although the purpose and object thereof would be defeated thereby." If the view taken by the authorities below were to be upheld, the person such as the appellant, who ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
