TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er-in-Appeal No. 7/2000, dated 21-1-2000 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner affirmed the demand of differential duty of Rs. 3,45,000/- being the amount of exemption availed by the appellants for clearances of caustic soda in terms of Notification No. 5/98- C.E. dated 2-6-98, during the period 14-9-98 to 17-11-98. The appellants had cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e used by them in connection with oil exploration or exploitation activity, is produced to the proper officer. (c) such certificate or evidence as may be required by the proper officer for verifying that the said goods have been used in connection with the oil exploration or exploitation activity, is furnished." The lower authorities have denied the exemption availed by the appellants at the tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C), to support the claim of the appellants that once the substantive conditions of the notification were fulfilled, the exemption extended m the notification should not be denied for failure of the assessee to fulfil procedural conditions. He invited our attention particularly to the following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction." 3. Ld, SDR submitted that an exemption notification had to be constructed strictly and that M/s. SPIC Ltd., had not satisfied the conditions of the notification No. 5/98-CE dated 2-6-98, for the impugned goods to be eligible for the benefit of the said notification. He submitted that the impugned ....