TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent appeal, the term intended to be used should not be interpreted as intended to be used only or intended to be used exclusively. The tenor and language of the relevant notification entry and condition certainly do not that carry any such rigidity. As long as the goods are used for the intended purpose, in this case, that of storage of agricultural produce, the notification benefit cannot be denied. Storage of a small quantity of non-farm produce, along with the agricultural produce, cannot result in cancellation of the notification. It is not in dispute that the impugned goods were not used for storing agricultural produce, or for that matter, that only non-agricultural produce was stored therein - the appellant has not fallen foul of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional rate of duty could be used for storing farm products as well as other products according to the necessity. A SCN dated 08.07.2008 was issued to the appellant interalia proposing denial of the notification benefit and recovery of differential duty of ₹ 3,43,619/- with interest liability thereon and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In adjudication, the original authority vide an order dated 15.09.2008 confirmed the proposals in the notice. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 02.08.2010 rejected the appeal. Hence, appellants are before this forum. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri J. Shankarraman, made oral and written submissions which can be br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have confirmed the demand, charged interest and imposed penalty based on the event which took place on 11.09.2008 which is beyond the scope of the SCN. vii) There is no condition under the notification that it should be exclusively used for agricultural produce alone. In the absence of such a condition the denial of exemption by the Dy. Commissioner is contrary to the conditions specified in the notification. viii) Wherever the Govt. thought it fit that a particular goods should be used only for a particular purpose then the same was indicated in the notification itself. For example, in Notification No. 6/02-CE there is a specific requirement that yarn is used only on handlooms. In notification No. 21/02-Cus. there is a requirem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be used for storage of items other than agricultural produce. The core issue that comes up for decision is whether the phrase intended for storage of agricultural produce can be interpreted as intended for exclusive storage of agricultural produce only. 5.2 The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. - 2004 (178) ELT 13 (S.C.) had gone into the interpretation of the term for use and had concluded that the term only means intended for use and that if the legislative intent was to allow exemption on actual use, the words goods actually used or goods used would have been incorporated. The relevant portion of the Apex Court judgment is as under:- 10. We are unable to accept the submission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m produce, along with the agricultural produce, cannot result in cancellation of the notification. 5.4 For one, while the notification extends the benefit to goods intended to be used, interalia, for storage of agricultural produce, it does not lay down that any other produce requiring cold storage cannot also be stored along with. Secondly, as correctly pointed out by the Ld. Advocate there do exist other entries in the same notification which mandate that the beneficiary goods shall be used only for a certain purpose. 5.5 In any case, it is not in dispute that the impugned goods were not used for storing agricultural produce, or for that matter, that only non-agricultural produce was stored therein. 6. In the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
