TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. Further, the appellant had not produced any other evidence before the authorities below to show that the documents / records in relation to the disputed containers were destroyed in fire. Furthermore, the premises where fire took place does not belong to the appellant and the same belongs to another Company namely, M/s Armstrong Smith Ltd. Since no plausible evidence was produced by the appellant to demonstrate that the containers imported by it were in fact re-exported, the conditions prescribed in the Notification dated 02.05.1979 have not been complied with, for getting the benefit contained therein. Benefit of notification rightly denied - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, the appellant could not able to produce evidence in co-relating the import particulars vis- -vis exportation of the same. In this context, he has stated that the documents pertaining to reexport of the containers were destroyed in fire, took place in the premises of M/s Armstrong Smith Ltd, on 31.10.1991. He further submits that since the appellant had stated the reason of destruction of documents due to fire accident, the authorities below should have considered such plea of the appellant and should have condone the conditions provided in the Notification dated 02.05.1979 read with the bond executed by the appellant. 4. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how that the documents / records in relation to the disputed containers were destroyed in fire. Furthermore, the premises where fire took place does not belong to the appellant and the same belongs to another Company namely, M/s Armstrong Smith Ltd. Since no plausible evidence was produced by the appellant to demonstrate that the containers imported by it were in fact re-exported, I am of the view that the conditions prescribed in the Notification dated 02.05.1979 have not been complied with, for getting the benefit contained therein. With regard to the interpretation of the exemption Notification, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal (supra) have held that the burden of proof rests on the person, who claims exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i.e., by the plain terms of the exemption. 7. In view of the above settled position of law and especially in view of fact that the appellant did not comply with the requirement of the notification dated 02.05.1979 and the conditions of the bond executed by it, I am of the considered opinion that the adjudged demand confirmed on it is legally sustainable. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
