TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpleaded the Central Board of Excise and Customs as a party. Therefore, this Court suo-motu impleads the Joint Secretary (Admin.), Central Board of Customs and Excise, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110 002, as the fourth respondent and the Registry is directed to carry out the amendment in the cause list. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 08.09.2012, by which, the third respondent has directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of cost recovery charges for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2011 within a stipulated time. The only ground on which the impugned order has been challenged is by contending that the petitioner has filed an application for grant of exemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CBEC is seized of the matter and it appears that no order has been passed by the CBEC either accepting or rejecting the claim for exemption made by the petitioner. In the meantime, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay the cost recovery charges for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2011. In the interregnum, the petitioner was served with a demand for payment of the cost recovery charges for the period from April, 2007 to December, 2008, which was due to the implementaion of the 6th Pay Commission. Accordingly, a demand was issued by the third respondent dated 17.12.2008 and the said demand was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.30867 of 2008, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 08.02.2011 fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court in the case of M/s.Thiru Rani Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Madhavaram, Chennai, v. the Director General, Directorate General of Human Resource Development, New Delhi, and five others (W.P.No.20828 of 2016, dated 20.06.2016), wherein it is held that an exemption notification has to be strictly construed and a person claiming exemption has to fulfill all the parameters and thereafter, it is for the authority to consider the plea of exemption. 9. Thus, taking note of the above facts, the petitioner cannot escape from the liability as raised in the demand dated 17.12.2008 for the period from April, 2007 to December, 2008, which has been quantified at Rs. 20,52,498/-. What is important to note is that thought the petitioner's application f....