Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Notification No.125/84-C.E. dated 26.05.1984 exempted excisable goods manufactured in a 100% export-oriented undertaking even where the goods were manufactured by a third party in the undertaking's premises, and whether the duty demand and penalty could survive once the exemption was held applicable.
Analysis: The notification exempted all excisable goods produced or manufactured in a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking from duty under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The wording did not confine the exemption to goods manufactured "by" the undertaking, and no such expression could be supplied by interpretation. The notification had to be read as drafted, without adding words or importing intendment into a taxing notification. On that construction, goods manufactured in the EOU premises qualified for the exemption, irrespective of whether the actual manufacturer was the EOU itself or another person engaged by it.
Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No.125/84-C.E. was available; the duty demand did not survive and penalty was not justified.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification in a taxing statute must be construed strictly according to its plain language, and courts cannot add words such as "by" to restrict the scope of exemption beyond what the notification expressly provides.