TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 as amended. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had exported goods to Falta Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under four ARE-1 valued at Rs. 7,10,000/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 73,130/- without furnishing a General Bond or Letter of Undertaking to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise as required under Rule 19 read with Board's Circular No.29/2006-Cus dated 27.12.2006. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that after the purported export to Falta SEZ, the appellant had submitted triplicate and quadruplicate copies of ARE-1 to the department. However, the appellant did not reply to the sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the procedural aspect would not disqualify the appellant from availing substantive benefit. In support of his contention he relied on the following decision: (i) Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner [1991(55) E.L.T. 437(S.C.)], (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Chandresh C.Shah [2014(36) S.T.R. 972(Guj.)]. 5. Ld. SDR reiterates the discussions and findings of the lower authorities. He further submits that the ground of ignorance of law cannot be entertained and there are lot of discrepancies in the documents as submitted by the appellants and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. It is not in dispute that the goods were supplie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the emphasis of this argument. The consequence which Shri Narasimhamurthy 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearly envisages a procedure to give effect to the exemption. A distinction between the provisions of statute which are of substantive character and were built-in with certain specific objectives of policy on the one hand and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature on the other must be kept clearly distinguished. What we have here is a pure technicality. Clause 3 of the notification leaves no discretion to the Deputy Commissioner to refuse the permission if the conditions are satisfied. The words are that he "will grant". There is no dispute that appellant had satisfied these conditions. Yet the permission was withheld - not for any valid and substantial reason but owing to certain extraneous things concerning some ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amurthy, 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 plain and clear and directly convey the meaning, there is no need for any interpretation. It appears to us the true rule of construction of a ....