Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 a unit that had already obtained excise exemption as a new industrial unit under Clause 5(a) of Notification No. 20/2007-CE could claim a second period of exemption on alleged substantial expansion under Clause 5(b) of the same notification.
Analysis: The policy and notification contemplated two distinct categories: new units commencing commercial production within the notified period and existing units that had undertaken substantial expansion of not less than 25% of fixed capital investment. The petitioner had already been treated as a new unit and had received the full exemption contemplated under Clause 5(a). The Court held that such a unit could not thereafter be reclassified as an existing unit for the purpose of Clause 5(b). It further held that exemption notifications must be strictly construed, that eligibility must be shown within the terms of the notification, and that exemption cannot be enlarged by equity or by importing an additional benefit not expressly granted. The doctrine of promissory estoppel did not assist the petitioner because the benefit under the policy had already been availed.
Conclusion: The claim for a further exemption under Clause 5(b) was rejected, and the challenge failed.