https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42477 Civil court jurisdiction was held not to be barred by necessary implication under the Central Excise and Salt Act, as exclusion of ordinary jurisdiction cannot be readily inferred where the statute does not expressly oust it and provides appeal, revision and notice procedures. Notification No. 75/62 was construed as an exemption provision according to its plain language, and any ambiguity was resolved in favour of the assessee; the exemption could not be narrowed by implying a condition of exclusive use of old skull scrap. The factual findings on proof of the claim were found unsustainable because the trial court had not properly appreciated the documentary and oral evidence, so the matters were remanded for fresh adjudication. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:55:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42477 Civil court jurisdiction was held not to be barred by necessary implication under the Central Excise and Salt Act, as exclusion of ordinary jurisdiction cannot be readily inferred where the statute does not expressly oust it and provides appeal, revision and notice procedures. Notification No. 75/62 was construed as an exemption provision according to its plain language, and any ambiguity was resolved in favour of the assessee; the exemption could not be narrowed by implying a condition of exclusive use of old skull scrap. The factual findings on proof of the claim were found unsustainable because the trial court had not properly appreciated the documentary and oral evidence, so the matters were remanded for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42477