2016 (7) TMI 290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2.  Matter concerns with the admissibility of benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995 amended by Notification No.13/2008 dated 1.3.2008 for the goods supplied to the projects funded/financed by the United Nations or an international organisation and approved by Government of India. 2.1 Original Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995 was amended by the Notification No.13/2008 dated 1.3.2008 which inserted an Explanation to the original Notification No.108/95-CE. The Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 1.3.2008 made the following amendment to the Notification No.108/95-CE. "In the said notification, the Explanation shall be numbered as Explanation 1 thereof, and after Explanation 1, as so numbered, the followi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h education cess  of Rs. 23,41,808/- and higher secondary education cess of Rs. 3,29,585/- (totalling to Rs. 11,97,61,791/-). Commissioner by its impugned order dated 30.12.2009 issued on 1.1.2010 confirmed the total demand of Rs. 11,97,61,791/- along with interest and also imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4.  The appellants have come to this Tribunal in appeal against the above order dated 30.12.2009 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II. The appellants viz., L & T Komatsu Ltd. have mainly argued as follows: (i) Original Notification did not contain Explanation 2. It was introduced only on 1.3.2008 by Notification No.13/2008. (ii) Explanation 2 applies o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cials. • All information and particulars were informed to the Department well in advance and there cannot be any allegation of suppression of facts and therefore demand to be set aside. 5. All the facts on record and the submissions of both the sides have been carefully considered. 5.1  From the facts, it is clear that there has been no suppression of facts on the part of the appellants when the new Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 1.3.2008 was issued.  After the issue of amended Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 1.3.2008 appellants approached the Department of Central Excise and informed that "they have effected clearances only after securing an undertaking that the goods would be retained within the project and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 139]. An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section (See: Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 585 at 598]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force (See: Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar [(2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44)]; Brij Mohan Laxman Das v. CIT [(1997) 1 SCC 352 at 354], CIT v. Podar Cement [(1997) 5 SCC 482 at 506]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrase used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'. ....