https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77918 Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. was construed strictly as an exemption provision, so its benefit required actual payment of duty on the textile yarn or fabric and was not available where the inputs were nil-rated or otherwise not duty paid. Explanation II was treated as a limited deeming fiction that only dispensed with documentary proof of payment; it did not create a presumption that duty had in fact been paid. On that construction, the exemption was denied for non-duty-paid inputs, while penalties imposed by the lower authorities were set aside because the dispute turned on interpretation of the notification. en-us Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77918 Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. was construed strictly as an exemption provision, so its benefit required actual payment of duty on the textile yarn or fabric and was not available where the inputs were nil-rated or otherwise not duty paid. Explanation II was treated as a limited deeming fiction that only dispensed with documentary proof of payment; it did not create a presumption that duty had in fact been paid. On that construction, the exemption was denied for non-duty-paid inputs, while penalties imposed by the lower authorities were set aside because the dispute turned on interpretation of the notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77918