TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal to dispose the appeal afresh. 2. Facts of the case as put forth by appellant are as follows: 2.1 The appellant is a manufacturer of cables and supplies them to various projects including refineries and power projects. During 1998-99, he received certain orders for supply of cables from certain oil refineries is permitted. Import of raw materials for manufacture of equipment required for refineries under Notification No. 23/98-Cus dt.02.06.98 (Sl. No. 164, list 27, item 7). Cables are exempted from all duties of customs under Notification No.23/98-Cus provided that they are supplied to oil refineries on registration of the imports under Project Import Regulations, 1986. The said list specifically mentions cables. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout any objection. 2.4 The imports were made during July, 98 and August, 98 and the eight bills of entry filed were assessed provisionally by the Customs and there was no objection from Customs even during the assessment of the bills. The contracts are still in force and not cancelled by the Customs. More than six months after the import, the DC, Customs issued a demand notice dated 25.3.1999 (received on 31.3.1999) asking the appellant proposing a demand of differential duty of Rs. 78,05,489/- w.r.t the said eight bills of entry bills of entry under Section 28(1) of the Act. Subsequently, an order No. 3/99-Cus dated 24.6.2009 was passed demanding the duty. On appeal, the Commissioner (A) also confirmed the demand. The Honourable Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d is unsustainable as there was no provision to demand interest prior to 13.07.2006 in case of provisional assessments. 4. On behalf of department Ld. AR Sh. Arun Kumar submitted that the demand of Rs. 78,05,489/- being the differential duty along with interest thereon is legal and proper. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The Crux of the issue is firstly issue is firstly whether the appellant is eligible for benefit of exemption Notification No. 23/1998-Cus dated 02.06.1998 or otherwise and secondly, whether interest liability will accrue in provisional assessments initated in July/August 1998, i.e. before 13.07.2006. 7. It is not disputed that the appellant had registered contracts under project imports for manufacture of cables r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not qualify the description contained in Notification Nos. 8/96 and 4/97. It is trite that strict interpretation is to be given to the exemption notifications and it is upon the assessee to approve that he fulfills all the conditions of eligibility under such Notifications. This is so held by this Court in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, Bhilwara, Rajasthan v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, Rajasthan - (1995) 4 SCC 473 = 1995 (77) E.L.T. 474 (S.C.), wherein this principle was stated in the following manner 16. Lastly, it is for the assessee to establish that the goods manufactured by him come within the ambit of the exemption notification. Since, it is a case of exemption from duty, there is no question of any liberal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubstance of the notification granting exemption. 30. In Novopan India Ltd. (Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE and Customs, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606) this Court held that a person, invoking an exception or exemption provisions, to relieve him of tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provisions and, in case of doubt or ambiguity, the benefit of it must go to the State. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. CCE and Customs (AIR 1970 SC 755 = (1969) 2 SCR 253) held that (Novopan India Ltd. case, SCC p. 614, para 16) : "16. ..such a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that....