TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und to the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner had, in his order, rejected the refund to the appellant on the following two grounds: a) Appellant had procured module mounting structures, solar inverters and solar junction boxes which do not fall within the ambit of the description of goods covered by exemption notification no. 15/2010-CE dated 27.02.2010. Therefore, the exemption is not applicable to the goods. b) The condition stipulated in the notification no. 15/2010-CE dated 27.02.2010 requires a certificate from the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) to be submitted before the clearance of the goods whereas the assesse had submitted this after their clearance. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals), in his order,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. b) The notification specifically required that a certificate from the MNRE must be submitted before clearance of the goods and in this case the assesse submitted the certificate after the clearance of the goods. c) As per the judgment of the Larger Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar and Company and others [2018 (7) TMI 1826 (SC-LB)], any exemption notification must be construed strictly and any ambiguity must be ruled against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. He specifically drew attention to paragraph 52 of the judgment which reads as follows: 52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under - (1) Exemption notification should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t submitted as follows: a) There is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in sanctioning refund. b) Although the assesse had applied for the certificate beforehand, it was issued much later as MNRE took time and the goods had to be cleared before that date. Simply because the certificate was issued by the MNRE at a later date, the substantive benefit of the exemption notification should not be denied to them. c) The mounting structures are not any general equipment but were specifically designed and were intended for setting up of the solar power plant. d) The exemption notification covers all items of machinery and is not restrictive. Infact, it further elaborates its scope by including....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them. It is, however, necessary to bear in mind certain principles. The notification in this case was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and should be read along with the Act. The notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions. When a notification is issued in accordance with power conferred by the statute, it has statutory force and validity and, therefore, the exemption under the notification is as if it were contained in the Act itself. See in this connection the observations of this Court in Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1962 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s extracted hereinabove would, however, suggest that an exception to the general rule of tax has to be construed strictly against those who invoke for their benefit. This was explained in a subsequent decision in Wood Papers Ltd. case (supra). In para 6, it was observed as follows : "... In Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd., (1989) 1 SCC 345, this Court while accepting that exemption clause should be construed liberally applied rigorous test for determining if expensive items like Gold Spot base or Limca base of Thums Up base were covered in the expression food products and food preparations used in Item No. 68 of First Schedule of Central Excises and Salt Act and held 'that it should not be in consonance with s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se (supra). 8. The decision in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company & Others, makes it clear that while the exemption notification must be strictly construed to decide whether an assessee falls within its ambit or not, thereafter, full play of strict and liberal interpretations must be resorted to in order to decide whether an assesse is entitled to benefit of exemption notification. 9. We also note that the exemption notification, in this case, does not list any specific items but says all items of machinery and further elaborates by specifically including certain goods. The inclusive part of a definition does not restrict the main part of the definition but only elaborates it. In our considered view, "all items of machinery required ....