TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmunity of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 and covered by ration of judgment in the case of Manglore Chemicals v/s Deputy Commissioner?" 3. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Jain has taken us to the view taken by the Tribunal and mainly contended that Rule 96ZO(2) which reads as under:- "Where a manufacturer does not produce the ingots and billets of non-alloy steel during any continuous period of not less than seven days and wishes to claim abatement under subsection (3) of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the abatement will be allowed by an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise of such amount as may be specified in such order, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions viz.: (a) the manufacturer shall inform in writing about the closure to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure; (b) the manufacturer shall intimate the reading of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, immediately after the production in his factory is stopp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the emphasis of this argument. The consequence which Shri Narasimha Murthy suggests should flow from the non-compliance would, indeed, be the result if the condition was a substantive one and one fundamental to the policy underlying the exemption. Its stringency and mandatory nature must be justified by the purpose intended to be served. The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve. In Kedarnath's case itself this Court pointed but that the stringency of the provisions and the mandatory character imparted to them were matters of important policy. The Court observed: ...The object of Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and the rules made thereunder is self-evident. While they are obviously intended to give exemption to a dealer in respect of sales to registered dealers of specified classes of goods, it seeks also to prevent fraud and col....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Central Excise, Bombay-I and Anr. v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. MANU/SC/0081/1988 : [1990]183ITR624(SC) in support of strict construction of a provision concerning exemptions. 'There is support of judicial opinion to the view that exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the other unexampled class of taxpayers and should be construed against the subject in case of ambiguity. It is an equally well-known principle that a person who claims an exemption has to establish his case. Indeed, in the very case of M/s. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. relied upon by Sri Narasimhamurthy, it was observed: While interpreting an exemption clause, liberal interpretation should be imparted to the language thereof, provided no violence is done to the language employed. It must, however, be borne in mind that absurd results of construction should be avoided. The choice between a strict and a liberal construction arises only in case of doubt in regard to the intention of the Legislature manifest on the statutory language. Indeed, the need to resort to any interpretative process arises only where the meaning is not manifest on the plain words of the statute. If the words are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of... in my industrial undertaking, viz. (here give full name and address of the undertaking)... and I shall not use them for any other purpose for sale or otherwise dispose them of to any other party for any other purpose, except, having previously paid the difference between the octroi due on such goods at ordinary rates and the octroi paid on concessional rates under Schedule II to the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1968. Date...Signature of the Importer The declaration contemplated in Form 14 is to the effect that the goods imported shall not be used for any other purpose for sale or otherwise etc. It can thus be seen that an incentive is sought to be given to such entrepreneurs by such concession if the raw material which is imported is also utilised in the industrial undertaking without selling or disposing of otherwise. That being the object a verification at the relevant time by the octroi authorities becomes very much necessary before a concession can be given. In the absence of filing such a declaration in the required Form 14, there is no opportunity for the authorities to verify. Therefore, the petitioner- Company has definitely failed to fulfil an i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exemption unless he furnishes the declaration in the prescribed form. It was further held as under at p. 14 of AIR: There is an understandable reason for the stringency of the provisions. The object of Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and the rules made thereunder is self-evident. While they are obviously intended to give exemption to a dealer in respect of sales to registered dealers of specified classes of goods, it seeks also to prevent fraud and collusion in an attempt to evade tax. In the nature of things, in view of innumerable transactions that may be entered into between dealers, it will well nigh be impossible for the taxing authorities to ascertain in each case whether a dealer has sold the specified goods to another for the purposes mentioned in the section. Therefore, presumably to achieve the twofold object, namely, prevention of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency, the exemption given is made subject to a condition that the person claiming the exemption shall furnish a declaration form in the manner prescribed under the section. The liberal construction suggested will facilitate the commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences, both o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is not likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconvenience." 4.3. He has also relied upon three decisions of the Tribunal which were finalized and department has not challenged the same. Firstly, in case of D.C. Steel (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Chandigarh reported in 2002 (139) ELT 291 (Tri.-Del) wherein it has been held as under:- "4. I have examined the submissions. It is not in dispute that the appellants' induction furnace was closed during the interval between 24.3.2000 (6.30 P.M.) and 1.4.2000. The jurisdictional Range Supdt. who visited the premises on 27.3.2000 pursuant to the party's intimation of closure of furnace certified that the electric meter reading and stock position of final products declared by them as on 24.3.2000 at 6.30 P.M. were correct. Relevant extract of RG-1 containing the Supdt.'s remarks certifying as above is available on record and the same has been examined today. I find that this certification by the Range Supdt. amounted to conceding that the induction furnace was closed on 24.3.2000 at 6.30 P.M. It appears from the impugned order that the Commissioner has not properly appreciated this ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mittedly given to the Range Officer on the 18th (Monday). No procedural guidelines were in force during those days, governing such intimation. The Trade Notice cited by the Counsel was in place only in August, 1999. Clause (a) of Rule 96ZO(2) stipulated that closure of the factory should be intimated to the Range Supdt. as well as the Divisional Assistant Commissioner on the date of closure itself, if not on the previous day. In the instant case, it is claimed by the appellants that the closure of the furnace was not by design but on account of break-down. Apparently, this claim has not been rebutted by the Commissioner. This being the position, the earliest time at which intimation of closure could have been given by the party to the departmental authorities was the first working day after the continuous holidays of 16th and 17th May, 1998. They have given the intimation accordingly. In the absence of departmental circular or Trade Notice laying down specific procedure for intimation of closure in such "holiday situations" for the material period, it has to be held that the intimation of closure given by the party to the Range Officer on the 18th May, 1998 was in substantial compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... office and not immediately on the next working day and in other case, the office was closed and manufacturing was stopped on 20th March 1998 and post was made on 21st March, 1998 but was received on 24th March, 1998. 6. On the other side, Mr. Anuroop Singhi appearing for the department contended that there is no error committed by the Tribunal therefore, no interference is called for. 7. Mr. Singhi has relied upon the decision in case of Maharshi Commerce Ltd. vs. Commerce Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Cus. & C. Ex. reported in 2016 (338) ELT 413 (A.P) wherein it has been held as under:- "3. The learned counsel, Sri V. Gopalakrishna Gokhaley, for the respondent-department submitted that the original authority as well as the appellate authority have rightly considering the terms of condition (e) under sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO dismissed the claim of the appellant and therefore, no interference of this Court is required. Rule 96ZO(2) refers to: "Where a manufacturer does not produce the ingots and billets of non-alloy steel during any continuous period of not less than seven days and wishes to claim abatement under sub-section (3) of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered opinion is that the appeal which was preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act which reads as under:- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-Section shall be - (a) filed within one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party; (b) accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees where such appeal is filed by the other party; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of ....