TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....081 52125 52166 52216 52263 51958 51999 52082 52126 52167 52217 52264 51959 52000 52083 52127 52168 52218 52265 51960 52001 52084 52128 52169 52219 52266 51961 52002 52085 52129 52170 52220 52267 51962 52003 52086 52130 52171 52221 52268 51963 52004 52087 52131 52175 52222 52269 51964 52005 52088 52132 52176 52223 52270 51965 52006 52089 52133 52177 52224 52271 51966 52007 52090 52134 52178 52225 52272 51967 52008 52091 52135 52179 52226 52273 51968 52009 52092 52136 52180 52227 52274 51969 52010 52093 52137 52181 52228 52275 51970 52011 52094 52138 52182 52229 52276 51971 52012 52095 52139 52183 52230 52277 51972 52013 52096 52140 52184 52231 52278 51973 52014 52097 52141 52185 52232 52279 51974 52015 52098 52142 52186 52233 52280 51975 52016 52099 52143 52187 52234 52281 51976 52017 52103 52144 52188 52235 52282 51977 52018 52104 52145 52189 52236 52283 51978 52019 52105 52146 52190 52237 52284 AND CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51228 OF 2020 WITH CUSTOMS APPEALS OF THE YEAR 2020 51229 51234 51239 51244 51249 51254 51259 51230 51235 51240 51245 51250 51255 51260 51231 51236 51241 51246 51251 51256 51261 51232 51237 51242 51247 51252 51257 51262 51233 51238 51243 51248 51253 51258 AND CUSTOMS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OF 2022 WITH CUSTOMS APPEALS OF THE YEAR 2022 50102 50235 50397 50516 50676 50811 50929 50103 50236 50398 50517 50677 50812 50930 50104 50237 50399 50518 50678 50813 50931 50105 50238 50400 50519 50679 50814 50932 50106 50239 50401 50520 50680 50815 50933 50107 50240 50402 50521 50681 50816 50934 50108 50241 50403 50522 50682 50817 50935 50109 50242 50404 50523 50683 50818 50936 50110 50243 50405 50524 50684 50819 50937 50111 50244 50406 50525 50685 50820 50938 50112 50245 50407 50526 50686 50821 50939 50113 50246 50408 50527 50687 50822 50940 50114 50247 50409 50528 50688 50823 50941 50115 50248 50410 50529 50689 50824 50942 50116 50249 50411 50530 50690 50825 50943 50117 50250 50412 50531 50691 50826 50944 50118 50251 50413 50532 50692 50827 50945 50119 50252 50414 50533 50693 50828 50946 50120 50253 50415 50534 50694 50829 50947 50136 50254 50416 50535 50695 50830 50948 50137 50255 50417 50578 50696 50831 50949 50138 50256 50418 50579 50697 50832 50950 50139 50257 50419 50580 50698 50833 50951 50140 50258 50420 50581 50699 50834 50952 50141 50259 50421 50582 50700 50835 50953 50142 50260 50422 50583 50701 50836 50954 50143 50261 50423 50584 50702 50837 50955 50144 50262 50424 50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....777 50895 51013 50202 50364 50482 50643 50778 50896 51014 50203 50365 50483 50644 50779 50897 51015 50204 50366 50484 50645 50780 50898 51016 50205 50367 50485 50646 50781 50899 51017 50206 50368 50486 50647 50782 50900 51018 50207 50369 50487 50648 50783 50901 51019 50208 50370 50488 50649 50784 50902 51020 50209 50371 50489 50650 50785 50903 51021 50210 50372 50490 50651 50786 50904 51022 50211 50373 50491 50652 50787 50905 51023 50212 50374 50492 50653 50788 50906 51024 50213 50375 50493 50654 50789 50907 51025 50214 50376 50494 50655 50790 50908 51026 50215 50377 50495 50656 50791 50909 51027 50216 50378 50496 50657 50792 50910 51028 50217 50379 50498 50658 50793 50911 51029 50218 50380 50499 50659 50794 50912 51030 50219 50381 50500 50660 50795 50913 51031 50220 50382 50501 50661 50796 50914 51032 50221 50383 50502 50662 50797 50915 51033 50222 50384 50503 50663 50798 50916 51034 50223 50385 50504 50664 50799 50917 51035 50224 50386 50505 50665 50800 50918 51036 50225 50387 50506 50666 50801 50919 51037 50226 50388 50507 50667 50802 50920 51038 50227 50389 50508 50668 50803 50921 51039 50228 50390 50509 50669 50804 50922 51040 50229 50391 50510 50670 50805 50923 51041 50230 50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant imported aircrafts and it is stated that when the engines/ auxiliary power units or other parts of the aircrafts began to develop defects, they were exported out of India for repairs and the aircrafts also had to be exported out of India for repairs and maintenance. The repaired parts/aircrafts are thereafter re-imported into India and at the time of reimport, Bills of Entry are filed. 3. A dispute had earlier arisen as to whether the appellant would be justified in claiming exemption of integrated tax under the Exemption Notification on re-import of repaired parts/ aircrafts into India during the period from August, 2017 to March, 2019. The appellant had claimed exemption from integrated tax under the Exemption Notification for the reason that the importer is required to only pay 'duty of customs' on the fair cost of repairs and the cost of insurance and freight charges, both ways and not the integrated tax. The Customs Authorities, however, did not agree on this issue with the appellant, as according to them the appellant was not entitled to exemption from integrated tax since the phrase 'duty of customs' at serial no. 2 of the Exemption Notification, includes both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Explanation. - ***** (a) ***** (b) ***** (c) *****" (emphasis supplied) 5. It was mainly sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant in the aforesaid appeals decided by the Tribunal that: (i) Duty of customs, as mentioned in the conditions for serial no. 2 of the Exemption Notification, cannot be interpreted to include integrated tax within its purview since a plain reading of the Exemption Notification clearly denotes that what is payable in terms of serial no. 2 is the duty of customs on the fair cost of repairs carried out including to and fro freight charges. All the other duties / taxes, including integrated tax and compensation cess, are wholly exempted under the Exemption Notification; (ii) The Exemption Notification has consciously used two different expressions duty of customs and integrated tax at different places in the Notification, and so the same have to be understood differently and one cannot be substituted with the other; (iii) Where the language of any Notification is unambiguous, the plain meaning has to be assigned to such unambiguous language; and (iv) Integrated tax is not a duty of custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e First Schedule'), on the fair cost of repairs carried out with insurance and freight charges." (emphasis supplied) 8. And then the Division Bench held: "36. ***** It, therefore, inevitably follows that the expression duty of customs occurring in the column (3) of the Table at serial no. (2) of the Exemption Notification would only mean the duty of customs leviable under the Customs Act as have been specified in the First and Second Schedules to the Tariff Act and not to integrated tax, which is levied under section 5 of the Integrated Tax Act. ***** 39. What also needs to be kept in mind is that mention of duty of customs, integrated tax and compensation cess in the main body of the Exemption Notification implies that the Government was conscious of the distinction between the three. What is also important to notice is that after the phrase "duty of customs levied thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule", there is a comma before "and the integrated tax, compensation cess leviable thereon". This also clearly shows that duty of customs, integrated tax and compensation cess are three different entities. Above all, all the three, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....June, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 780(E), dated the 30th June, 2017, namely: - In the said notification, - (i) in the Table, against serial number 2 and 3, in column (3), for the words "Duty of customs", the words "Said duty, tax or cess" shall be substituted; (ii) in the Explanation, after clause (c), the following clause shall be inserted, namely: - "(d) on recommendation of the GST Council for removal of doubt, it is clarified that the goods mentioned at serial numbers 2 and 3 of the Table, are leviable to integrated tax and cess as leviable under the said Customs Tariff Act, besides the customs duty as specified in the said First Schedule, calculated on the value as specified in column (3), and the exemption, under said serial numbers, is only from the amount of said tax, cess and duty over and above the amount so calculated." (emphasis supplied) 13. On the same date, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs CBIC also issued a clarification regarding applicability of integrated tax on repair cost, insurance and freight on goods re-imported a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterials used in repairs (whether such costs are actually incurred for not), insurance and freight charges, both ways. 3. Therefore, the said notification prescribes that duties or taxes (including BCD, IGST, etc) at the applicable rates will be payable on such imports, calculated on the value of repairs, insurance and freight, instead of the value of the goods itself. Similar concession existed in pre-GST period too, vide notification No. 94/96-Customs, whereby, the customs duty (BCD, additional duty of customs under section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, etc.) were payable on the value of repairs instead of the entire value of goods in such imports. 4. GST rate and exemptions are prescribed on the recommendation of the GST Council. The Council, at the time of roll out of GST decided to continue the concession as were available under the said notification No. 94/96Cus, with only consequential amendment, i.e, replacing additional duties of customs with IGST and Compensation cess, as discussed in the 14th Meeting of the GST Council. Accordingly, under GST, IGST and Compensation cess were made applicable on the value of repairs, insurance and freight on re-import of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any doubt, to clarify the decision of the GST Council that re-import of goods sent abroad for repair attracts IGST and cess (as applicable) on a value equal to the repair value, insurance and freight. 8. Accordingly, as recommended by the GST Council, it is clarified that notification Nos. 45/2017Customs and 46/2017-Customs, both dated the 30th of June, 2017 were issued to implement the decision of the GST Council taken earlier, that re-import of goods sent abroad for repair attracts IGST on a value equal to the repair value, insurance and freight. Further, in the light of the recommendations of the GST Council in its 43rd Meeting, a clarificatory amendment has been made in the said notifications, vide notification Nos. 36/2021-Customs and 37/2021- Customs, both dated 19th July, 2021, without prejudice to the leviability of IGST, as above, on such imports as it stood before the amendment. 9. The contents of this circular may please be brought to the notice of trade and industry through issue of Trade/ Public notices. The field formations may also be suitably sensitized in this regard. Difficulty, if any, in the implementation of this Circular may be brought to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate to Income tax Act and not Customs Act, 1962 or exemption there under. Secondly, as evident from Circular No. 16/2021-Cus dated 19.07.2021, the legislative intent was always to levy IGST on impugned imports. In fact, prior to GST, such imports were subjected to Additional Duty of Customs also. Thus the amendment done to clarify this position by way of an explanation has to be construed retrospectively. I refer to ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of W.P.I.L. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. [2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.)] which held that clarificatory notification shall have retrospective effect.***** ***** As can be noted, in the above quoted case, the policy of the Government had remained consistent and hence a clarificatory amendment was held to be retrospective in preset case also, the policy of the GST Council as well as the Government had been consistent and hence the explanation 'd' has to be considered to have retrospective application. 5.8 ***** It may be noted that the legislative intent has been clearly indicated in Circular No. 16/2021-Cus dated 19.07.2021 and for implementation of the same, explanatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act has not been undertaken in the Amendment Notification, the amendment cannot be given any retrospective effect. In this connection reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court Commr. Of C. Ex. & S.T., LTU, Delhi vs. Nangalmal Sugar Complex 2020 (371) E.L.T. 501 (Del.); (v) The amendments made by the Amendment Notification are not 'clarificatory'. They are substantive amendments and hence, cannot be given retrospective operation. A clarificatory provision is generally made to supply an obvious omission or to clear doubts as to the meaning of previous language. The test, as accepted from time to time by various courts, is to first consider the meaning of the provision to which an Explanation is to be added without the Explanation and compare the same with the meaning as given by the added Explanation, and if the result is same, then alone the Explanation can be considered as clarificatory and given retrospective effect from the inception of the original provision; (vi) The newly inserted Explanation (d) reveals that phrases such as 'clarified', 'for removal of doubt', have been used. As the implications of the Exemption Notification prior to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) Pvt. Ltd.; and the judgment of the Madras High Court in Mehler Engineered Products India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2018 (364) E.L.T. 27 (Mad.); (iv) There is no dispute that during the period Exemption Notification dated 16.12.1996 was operating upto 30.06.2017, duty of Customs included basic customs duty and countervailing duty. There is also no dispute that in terms of the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2017 duty of customs, integrated tax or cess would be leviable. Therefore, the beneficial Notification which was available prior to 30.06.2017 and available after 19.07.2021 should not be denied during the period from 01.07.2017 to 18.07.2021; and (v) The GST Council in its 43rd Meeting held on 28.05.2021 had made it clear that the benefit of the Exemption Notification for both basic customs duty and integrated tax shall be retrospective. The decision of the GST Council, therefore, should be given due importance. 17. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 18. Section 12 of the Customs Act provides that except as otherwise provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statutory duty is leviable and any exemption granted in relation to any goods in the manner provided in this sub-section shall have effect subject to the condition that the duty of customs chargeable on such goods shall in no case exceed the statutory duty. Explanation.- "Form or method", in relation to a rate of duty of customs, means the basis, namely, valuation, weight, number, length, area, volume or other measure with reference to which the duty is leviable. (4) Every notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2A) shall, unless otherwise provided, come into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette." 20. It would be seen that section 25(1) of the Customs Act empowers the Central Government to grant exemption from payment of duty by issuing a Notification in the Official Gazette. It is in exercise of the powers conferred under section 25(1) of the Customs Act that the Exemption Notification dated 30.06.2017 was issued by the Central Government. The said Exemption Notification exempts the goods falling within any Chapter of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act and specified in column (2) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d submissions were considered. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in InterGlobe Aviation was subsequently followed by at least five Division Benches of the Tribunal. There is no good reason to take a different view. 26. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in InterGlobe Aviation resulted in the issuance of the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2021 by the Central Government. This Amendment Notification specifically mentions that it was being issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act. As noticed above, two amendments were made; the first amendment is that against serial numbers 2 and 3, in column (3), for the words 'Duty of customs', the words 'Said duty, tax or cess' be substituted; and the second amendment is by way of insertion of clause (d) in the Explanation, which provides that on recommendation of the GST Council for removal of doubt, it is clarified that the goods mentioned at serial numbers 2 and 3 of the Table, are leviable to integrated tax and cess, and the exemption, under said serial numbers, is only from the amount of said tax, cess and duty over and above the amount so calculated. 27. In all the appeals, the Bills of Entry were filed for the period pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was issued under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act. In any case, a notification under sub-section (2A) of section 25 of the Customs Act can be issued only within one year from the date of issuance of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Act. In the present case, as the Exemption Notification was issued on 30.06.2017 under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, the notification under sub-section (2A) of the Customs Act could have been issued only on or before 29.06.2016. 32. The issue that would arise for consideration, therefore, is whether the Exemption Notification dated 19.07.2021, that was issued under subsection (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, can have retrospective effect. 33. The main body of the Amendment Notification mentions that the Central Government 'hereby makes the following amendments' in the Exemption Notification dated 30.06.2017. It does not state that the amendment would apply retrospectively from the date the Exemption Notification was issued on 30.06.2017 nor does Explanation (d) state that it has been inserted with retrospective effect. 34. Section 25(4) of the Customs Act provides that every no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication would have retrospective effect. 32. Clause (i) of the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2021 provides that against serial numbers 2 and 3, in column (3), for the words 'Duty of customs', the words 'Said duty, tax or cess' shall be substituted. Clause (ii) seeks to insert Explanation (d) to the Exemption Notification. It states that 'on recommendation of the GST Council, for removal of doubt, it is clarified that the goods mentioned at serial numbers 2 and 3 of the Table, are leviable to integrated tax and cess as leviable under the said Tariff Act, besides the customs duty', and the exemption, under said serial numbers, is only from the amount of said tax, cess and duty over and above the amount so calculated. 33. The department seeks to take aid of Explanation (d) that was inserted by the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2021 to contend that since the words 'for removal of doubt' and 'it is clarified' have been used in Explanation (d), the amendment contained in clause (1) would necessarily have retrospective effect. 34. It needs to be remembered that the Amendment Notification does not state that it is retrospective in nature and only an inference is sought t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which otherwise preamendment was not to be paid on the re-import of goods. The fact that prior to the amendment, integrated tax was not required to be paid is clear from the provisions of the Customs Act, the Tariff Act and the decision of the Tribunal in InterGlobe Aviation. It cannot, therefore, be urged that despite the creation of a new liability to pay integrated tax under the Amendment Notification, the amendment would still be retrospective in nature. 37. In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International. The Supreme Court, in the context of an Explanation that was added to section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to overcome the decision of the Gujarat High Court, observed that an explanation to a provision may either clear the ambiguity in the main provision or may add and widen the scope of the main section. If it clarifies, it may be given retrospective effect, but if it changes the law it must not be presumed to be retrospective, despite the use of 'it is declared' or 'for removal of doubts'. The relevant portions of the judgment of the Supreme Court are reproduced below: "5.3 ***** As wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larificatory - it explains Section 43B(d) as it originally stood and does not purport to add a new condition retrospectively, as has wrongly been held by the High Court" 39. In Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (2) TMI 147 - Supreme Court, the Supreme Court observed : "54. Even if the statute does contain a statement to the effect that the amendment is declaratory or clarificatory, that is not the end of the matter. The Court will not regard itself as being bound by the said statement made in the statute but will proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is an amendment which is intended to change the law and which applies to future periods. In this connection, see the following:- ***** 56. Otherwise also, it has been consistently held that a provision must be read subject to the rule that in the absence of an express provision or clear implication, the Legislature does not intend to attribute to the amending provision, a greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned. It is settled law that a taxing provision imposing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce tax, if any, would be payable only with effect from May, 2008 and not with retrospective effect. 37. In a case of this nature, the Court must be satisfied that the Parliament did not intend to introduce a substantive change in the law. As stated hereinbefore, for the aforementioned purpose, the expressions like 'for the removal of doubts' are not conclusive. The said expressions appear to have been used under assumption that organizing games of chance would be rendition of service. We are herein not concerned as to whether it was constitutionally permissible for the Parliament to do so as we are not called upon to determine the said question but for our purpose, it would be suffice to hold that the explanation is not clarificatory or declaratory in nature." (emphasis supplied) 41. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Martin Lottery Agencies was followed by the Supreme Court in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. vs. Dr. Manu & Anr. 2023 (5) TMI 1246 -Supreme Court The Supreme Court distinguished the role of a clarificatory/explanation from that of a substantive amendment and held that an explanation/clarification cannot expand or alter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively. It has been further held that an explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an omission or to clear up doubts as to meaning of previous Act. However, in the absence of clear words indicating that the meaning of the Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the preamended provision was clear and unambiguous." (emphasis supplied) 44. The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd. examined whether the amendments carried out in Explanation 2 to section 37(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be considered as declaratory and be given retrospective effect and observed that an 'explanation' is usually issued to clarify or resolve any ambiguity and mere use of the word 'explanation' cannot be the determining factor to ascertain the proper meaning and scope of the provision. The Delhi High Court further observed that if an explanation alters or widens the scope of the main provision, it cannot be applied to past periods when the explanation was not in force. The relevant portions of the judgment of the Delhi High Court are reproduced below : "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and the High Courts is that an Explanation to a provision may either clear the ambiguity in the main provision or it may add and widen the scope of the main provision. A provision is said to be clarificatory if a consideration of the meaning of the provision to which the Explanation has been added when compared to the meaning given by the added Explanation remains the same. However, if the meaning changes, it cannot be said to be clarificatory in nature. If the Explanation is clarificatory in nature, it may be given retrospective operation, but if it changes the law and alters or widens the scope of the main provision, it cannot be given retrospective operation. 46. In the present case, though Explanation (d), inserted by the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2021, proceeds to state that 'for removal of doubts' it is clarified, but the fact is that it imposes integrated tax, which otherwise prior to the introduction of the Explanation was not leviable under the unamended Exemption Notification dated 31.06.2017. It cannot, therefore, be said to be retrospective in nature, more so when neither clause (i) nor clause (ii) specifically mentions that it is retrospective in nature. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se." 50. It also needs to be noted that in paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgment in Indian Tobacco Association, the Supreme Court observed that the amendment under consideration does not take away any substantive right nor any penal consequence has been imposed. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the amendment only removes an obvious mistake. In fact, relying upon the doctrine of fairness, the Supreme Court observed : "28. The doctrine of fairness also is now considered to be a relevant factor for construing a statute. In a case of this nature where the effect of a beneficent statute was sought to be extended keeping in view the fact that the benefit was already availed of by the agriculturalists of tobacco in Guntur, it would be highly unfair if the benefit granted to them is taken away, although the same was meant to be extended to them also. For such purposes the statute need not be given retrospective effect by express words but the intent and object of the legislature in relation thereto can be culled out from the background facts. 29. The question has furthermore to be considered having regard to the language and object discernible from the statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. 55. Though it is correct that for the period upto 30.06.2017, the Exemption Notification No. 94/96 dated 16.12.1996 levied basic customs duty and countervailing duty and the Amendment Notification dated 19.07.2017 levied both basic customs duty and integrated tax, but it is equally true that Exemption Notification dated 30.06.2017, which operated from 01.07.2017 to 18.07.2021, merely levied duty of customs and did not levy integrated tax. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned authorized representative of the department that the Exemption Notification for the intervening period, therefore, should be interpreted in such a manner so as to included integrated tax in the duty of customs. The text and language employed in the Notification has to be seen and in the instant case Notification dated 30.06.2017 is very clear and was also interpreted by the Tribunal in InterGlobe Aviation to mean that integrated tax would not be included in the duty of customs. 56. In the end, learned authorized representative appearing for the department referred to the 37th and 39th meeting of the GST Council as also the Circular dated 19.07.2021 issued by the CBIC and the 43....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for intendment and what has to be seen is the clear meaning of the words. The relevant observation of the Supreme Court are reproduced below: "5 ***** It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is governed wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. If such intention can be gathered from the construction of the words of the notification or by necessary implication therefrom, the matter is different but that is not the case here. In this connection we may refer to the observations of Lord Watson in Salomon v. Salomon and Co., 1897 AC 22 at p. 38: "Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the legislature probably would have meant although there has been an omission to enact it. In a Court of Law or Equity, what the Legislature intended to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r should anything be implied other than essential inferences while considering a taxation statute. ***** 34. In Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors., AIR 1970 SC 755 = (1969) 2 SCR 253 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. J350 (S.C.) [hereinafter referred as Hansraj Gordhandas case' for brevity], wherein this Court was called upon to interpret an exemption notification issued under the Central Excise Act ***** The Court did not countenance such purposive interpretation. It was held that a taxing legislation should be interpreted wholly by the language of the notification ***** ***** 44. In Hansraj Gordhandas case (supra), the Constitutional Bench unanimously pointed out that an exemption from taxation is to be allowed based wholly by the language of the notification and exemption cannot be gathered by necessary implication or by construction of words; in other words, one has to look to the language alone and the object and purpose for granting exemption is irrelevant and immaterial." (emphasis supplied) 62. In Income Tax Officer, District II(ii), Kanpur & Ors. vs. Mani Ram Etc. (1969) 72 ITR 203, t....