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. 185/86-C.E. granted exemption to all goods falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 68, or whether the benefit was confined to goods manufactured in factories covered by the notifications listed in Annexure II.
Analysis: The notification had to be read as a whole. Although Annexure I described the goods falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 68, the operative portion of the notification made the exemption available only to goods covered by the notifications specified in Annexure II. Those notifications related to specified categories of factories and could not be treated as irrelevant. Annexure I and Annexure II were therefore required to be read together, and the exemption could not be extended beyond the class of goods and factories covered by the linked notifications.
Conclusion: The exemption was restricted to goods manufactured in the factories covered by the notifications mentioned in Annexure II, and the broader interpretation adopted below was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The revenue appeal succeeded, and the assessee's refund claim could not be sustained on the wider reading of the notification.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification contains both a general description and a restrictive operative reference to specified linked notifications, the notification must be construed as a whole and the exemption confined to the class expressly covered by the operative linkage.