Page 187 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] TRIBENI METALLOYS PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., GUWAHATI 625

2020 (373) E.L.T. 625 (Gau.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ajit Singh, CJ. and Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.
TRIBENI METALLOYS PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., GUWAHATI
C. Ex. App. No. 1 of 2017, decided on 1-6-2018
1
Area based exemption - Exemption Notification No. 32/99-C.E., benefit
of - Date of commencement - Industrial unit, newly included under said noti-
fication by way of amendment vide Notification No. 5/2002-C.E. - Assessee
aggrieved by refusal of exemption under notification beyond expiry of period
of ten years from notification dated 8-7-1999 - HELD : Provisions of clause 4 of
notification dated 8-7-1999 specifically provides that period of ten years com-
mences from date of publication of said notification i.e. 8-7-1999 - Further,
apart from bringing in some more locations, no further amendment made to
notification of 8-7-1999 - Therefore, impugned provision of clause 4, even after
amendment of 12-2-2002, remains as it is - Eligibility order providing that ex-
emption for ten years w.e.f. 12-2-2002, erroneous - Benefit of exemption appli-
cable to industrial units located in newly added locations also from 8-7-1999 -
Impugned orders set aside. - From the aforesaid provisions of law, the following prop-
ositions, amongst others, can be culled out : (i) If there is a question as to whether a bene-
ficiary comes within the purview of an exemption notification, then it being in the nature
of an exception has to be strictly construed, but once, it is established that the beneficiary
is entitled to the benefit of exemption, then the provisions of the exemption notification
has to be given a wider and liberal construction. (ii) When the exemptions are granted
with the object to encourage industrial growth, or to encourage exports, the exemptions
provided in the exemption notification be given its full effect and such entitlements
should not be constricted by attempting a narrower construction. In the aforesaid context
the contention raised by respondent authorities that appellant entitled to the benefit of
exemption from the date of the notification of 12-2-2002, inasmuch as, only after the said
notification the appellant is entitled for an exemption and that such exemption would
come to an end on the expiry of 10 (ten) years from the notification of 8-7-1999, would be
unacceptable. The said contention would not only be contrary to the provisions of the
notifications dated 8-7-1999 and 12-2-2002, but also would amount to giving a con-
stricted interpretation to the provisions of the notifications, which would be impermissi-
ble in view of the aforesaid provisions of law. [paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2011 (271) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) — Relied on .................. [Para 14]
Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-operative Ltd. v. Collector — 1996 (86) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.)
— Relied on ..................................................................................................................................... [Para 24]
Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector — 1989 (44) E.L.T. 794 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................... [Para 23]
Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. — 1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................. [Para 21]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri MSM L. Gope, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
[Judgment per : A.M. Bujor Barua, J. (Oral)]. - Heard Mr. D. Saikia,
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.C. Keyal, Learned Assistant
Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent.
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2017 (348) E.L.T. 572 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  187