Page 127 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] UNION OF INDIA v. V.V.F. LTD. 517

cannot, as pointed out by the United States Supreme Court in Secretary of
Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Company [94 L Ed 381 : 338 US 604
(1950)] be converted into tribunals for relief from such crudities and inequi-
ties. There may even be possibilities of abuse, but that too cannot of itself be
a ground for invalidating the legislation, because it is not possible for any
legislature to anticipate as if by some divine prescience, distortions and
abuses of its legislation which may be made by those subject to its provi-
sions and to provide against such distortions and abuses. Indeed, howsoev-
er great may be the care bestowed on its framing, it is difficult to conceive
of a legislation which is not capable of being abused by perverted human
ingenuity. The Court must therefore adjudge the constitutionality of such
legislation by the generality of its provisions and not by its crudities or in-
equities or by the possibilities of abuse of any of its provisions. If any crudi-
ties, inequities or possibilities of abuse come to tight, the legislature can al-
ways step in and enact suitable amendatory legislation. That is the essence
of pragmatic approach which must guide and inspire the legislature in
dealing with complex economic issues.”
13.6 In the [case] of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar and
Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1 = 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.), after considering various
decisions on the Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes, it is ultimately concluded that
every taxing statute including, charging, computation and exemption clauses, at
the threshold stage should be interpreted strictly. Further, though in case of am-
biguity in charging provisions, the benefit necessarily goes in favour of the as-
sessee, but for an exemption notification or exemption clause the benefit of am-
biguity must be strictly interpreted in favour of the Revenue/State.
It is further observed and held that a person claiming exemption, there-
fore, has to establish that his case squarely falls within the exemption notifica-
tion, and while doing so, a notification should be construed against the assessee
in case of ambiguity. A person who claims exemption has to establish his case.
14. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions
to the subsequent notifications/industrial policies which were the subject-matter
before the High Court and for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are of the opin-
ion that the respective notifications/industrial policies impugned before the
High Courts can be said to be clarificatory in nature and it can be defined as an
Act to remove doubts. It cannot be said that by the subsequent notifica-
tions/industrial policies the benefits which were accrued/granted under the ear-
lier notifications were sought to be taken away. It also cannot be said that by the
subsequent notifications/industrial policies, the rights which have been accrued
under the earlier notifications had been taken away.
14.1 The main objective of the earlier respective notifications/industrial
policies was to encourage the entrepreneurs to put new industries in the area so
as to generate employment and for that an incentive was offered to get back by
way of refund the excise duty paid either in cash or PLA, namely, the amount of
duty paid by the manufacturer of goods other than the amount of duty paid by
utilization paid by Cenvat credit. The same was subject to conditions that it will
be applied to the new industrial units, i.e. the units which are set up on and after
the publication of the said notification in the Official Gazette, i.e. not later than
31-7-2003. The notification was modified from time to time. However, during the
operation of the earlier notifications, it was noticed that the provision of granting
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  127