https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344909 A refund notification for cement and steel used in tsunami-affected house construction had to be read as a whole: clause 5 confined the benefit to duties actually paid on the specified goods used in the eligible houses, while clause 3(d)'s reference to 6% of construction cost with a monetary cap did not create a standalone lump-sum entitlement. The operative effect was that refund remained limited to the duty suffered on the materials, and the broader claim based on construction cost was rejected. The principle stated is that an exemption notification with a refund mechanism cannot be expanded beyond its text to grant relief unrelated to the duty paid on the notified goods. en-us Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344909 A refund notification for cement and steel used in tsunami-affected house construction had to be read as a whole: clause 5 confined the benefit to duties actually paid on the specified goods used in the eligible houses, while clause 3(d)'s reference to 6% of construction cost with a monetary cap did not create a standalone lump-sum entitlement. The operative effect was that refund remained limited to the duty suffered on the materials, and the broader claim based on construction cost was rejected. The principle stated is that an exemption notification with a refund mechanism cannot be expanded beyond its text to grant relief unrelated to the duty paid on the notified goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344909