TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dispute that the replication line or manufacturing machinery comprises all the machines listed in the exemption notification and the appellant had imported some of the machinery and not others - there were case laws taking both views with respect to the benefit of exemption notification. Some took a liberal view while interpreting the entitlement of a beneficial exemption notification, while others took a strict view. Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CC, Mumbai Vs M/s Dilip Kumar & Co and others [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment Order No.01/2008 dated 14.11.2008 denying the benefit of the Notification No.25/2002. Aggrieved by this order the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who vide the impugned order saw no merit and substance in the appeal and rejected the same and upheld the Order-in-Original. This appeal is against the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 3. The appellant vide the bill of entry imported one demo skyline 11 CD manufacturing system equipped with one emould all-electric CD injection moulding machine as per invoice . They claimed the benefit of exemption notification no.25/2002-CUS, Sl.No.25 which reads as follows: 25. CD/CD-R/DVD/DVD-R manufacturing machinery or replicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n have to be construed keeping in view the object and purpose of the notification. b. KR Steel Union Ltd [2001 (129) ELT 273 (SC)] in which it was held that interpretation of a notification like 77/80-Cus given to units in FTZ must not be read in a narrow manner so as to defeat the object of the notification c. CCE, Pondicherry Vs Acer India Ltd [2004 (172) ELT 289 (SC)], in which it was held that no one can be taxed by implication. d. Shriram Vinyl Chemical Industries [2001 (129) ELT 278 (SC)] e. CC, Kolkata Vs Rupa Co. Ltd [2004 (170) ELT 129 (SC)] f. CCE Vs Himalayan Co-op Milk Product Union Ltd [2000 (122) ELT 327 (SC)] g. Precast Engineering Pvt Ltd [2000 (118) ELT 288 (Tri-LB) h. Belapur Sugar allied industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng machine or a replication line. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. He further argued that even if there is any doubt regarding the entitlement of the benefit of the notification, the benefit of doubt should go to the revenue and the notification should be viewed strictly against the person claiming the exemption notification in view of the law finally settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CC, Mumbai Vs M/s Dilip Kumar Co and others [Civil Appeal No.3327/2007]. 7. We have considered the arguments on the both sides. The short point to be decided is whether or not the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Sl.No.25 in Exemption Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. (2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. (3) The ratio in Sun Export Case is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export Case stands over-ruled. 8. The above decision of the Hon ble Apex Court leaves us with no option but to hold that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. 9. The appeal is rejected and the Order-in-Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
