TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification of 8-7-1999 having specifically provided that the exemptions would be available for a period of 10 years w.e.f. the date of the said notification, i.e., 8-7-1999, any industrial unit subsequently brought within the purview of the notification by virtue of any later amendment, would also be entitled to the benefit of exemption from 8-7-1999. The contention sought to be raised by the respondent authorities that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of exemption from the date of the notification of 12-2-2002, inasmuch as, only after the said notification the appellant is entitled for an exemption and that such exemption would come to an end on the expiry of 10 (ten) years from the notification of 8-7-1999, would be unacceptable. The said contention would not only be contrary to the provisions of the notifications dated 8-7-1999 and 12-2-2002, but also would amount to giving a constricted interpretation to the provisions of the notifications, which would be impermissible in view of the aforesaid provisions of law. The appellant would be entitled to the benefit of exemption from excise duties for a period of 10 (ten) years w.e.f. 8-7-1999 - Appeal allowed - dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be counted from the date of commercial production. 6. An amendment was brought in to the notification of 8-7-1999 by the Notification No. 5/2002-C.E., dated 12-2-2002 by which, it was provided that amendments were made to the notification dated 8-7-1999 to the extent that some more locations were added over and above the locations already specified therein. Apart from the addition of more locations, no amendment in any other form was brought in to the notification dated 8-7-1999. 7. In the resultant consequence, even after the amendment of 12-2-2002, the notification of 8-7-1999 continues to provide for the same provisions as it was provided earlier, with the only exception that such provisions would now be made applicable to some further locations. In other words the provision of clause 4 of the notification of 8-7-1999 providing that the exemption of excise duty would be applicable from the date of the said notification i.e., 8-7-1999 would continue to remain as it is and such provisions would now be also applicable to the industrial units that may be located in the additional locations brought in by the amendment of 12-2-2002. 8. The appellant industrial unit adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .-Kol.)] the CESTAT, Kolkata arrived at a conclusion that under clause 4 of the notification of 8-7-1999, the period of ten years has to be calculated from the date of publication of the said notification or from the date of commencement of commercial production, whichever is later and that there is no provision in the subsequent notification of 12-2-2002 that the period of ten years has to be counted from the date of the said notification. The CESTAT, Kolkata accordingly, arrived at a conclusion that the rule of strict interpretation would apply in interpreting the benefits granted by the exemption notification and in the absence of any such provision in the notification. The contention of the appellant that the period of exemption should be counted from 12-2-2002 cannot be accepted. 14. With reference to the provision of the eligibility order dated 31-1-2003 that the exemption would be for a period of ten years with effect from 12-2-2002, the CESTAT, Kolkata referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bhopal [2011 (271) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.)] wherein, it was held that it is permissible for the competent authority to issue notice for recovery of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons also from 8-7-1999. It is to be noted that the amendment notification of 12-2-2002, in contradistinction, does not provide that the provisions of the notification dated 8-7-1999 are also applicable to the additional locations. 19. We are also in agreement with the conclusion of the CESTAT, Kolkata that the eligibility order dated 31-1-2003 providing that the exemption for ten years w.e.f. 12-2-2002 is erroneous. 20. In the resultant conclusion, we are of the view that under the notification of 8-7-1999, as made applicable to the appellant by the notification of 12-2-2002 upon their location being included, the appellant would be entitled to exemption for a period of ten years from 8-7-1999. 21. In this respect reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. {Manu/SC/0454/1991 : (1990) 4 SCC 256 = 1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.)], wherein, it has been held as under :- Literally exemption is freedom from liability, tax or duty. Fiscally it may assume varying shapes, specially, in a growing economy. For instance tax holiday to new units, concessional rate of tax to goods or persons for limited period or with the specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... needed for the manufacture of the resultant product, the words material required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of products were construed to include not only materials which are actually used in the manufacture but also materials which though not used in the manufacture are yet required in order to manufacture the resultant product. And an exemption notification granting rebate in excise duty to induce the manufacturers of sugar to produce more in the then current sugar year was construed consistent with this object and the words, the quantity of sugar produced during the corresponding period as used in the notification were construed to cover the case of a factory which has not produced at all during the relevant corresponding period. An exemption provision cannot be denied full effect by a circuitous process of interpretation, and liberal language used in a notification must be given due weight. So if the taxpayer is within the plain terms of the exemption notification, he cannot be denied the benefit calling in aid, any supposed intention, and the language of the notification has to be given effect to. 23. In Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent authorities that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of exemption from the date of the notification of 12-2-2002, inasmuch as, only after the said notification the appellant is entitled for an exemption and that such exemption would come to an end on the expiry of 10 (ten) years from the notification of 8-7-1999, would be unacceptable. The said contention would not only be contrary to the provisions of the notifications dated 8-7-1999 and 12-2-2002, but also would amount to giving a constricted interpretation to the provisions of the notifications, which would be impermissible in view of the aforesaid provisions of law. 28. In view of the above, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of exemption from excise duties for a period of 10 (ten) years w.e.f. 8-7-1999 and the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise at Guwahati dated 24-1-2011, the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27-8-2013 and the CESTAT dated 31-8-2016 in Appeal No. 75248/2014 are, accordingly, set aside. 29. The respondent authorities would be required to do the needful to ensure that the appellant is given the benefit of exemption from the excise duty as indicated above, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
