Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. We   may   passingly,   albeit,   briefly   reiterate   the   general principles of interpretation, which were also adverted to 1  See:  Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs,   Bombay   and   Anr.,  (1997)   6   SCC   564; Commissioner   of   Central   Excise,   Pune   v.   Abhi Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., (2005) 3 SCC 541;  Collector of Central Excise, Bombay­1 and Anr. v. Parle   Exports   (Pvt.)   Ltd.,   (1989)   1   SCC   345; Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Konkan Synthetic   Fibres,   (2012)   6   SCC   339;  Collector   of Customs,   Bombay   v.   Swastic   Wollens   (Pvt.)   Ltd.   And Ors.,   (1988)   Supp.   SCC   796;  Commissioner   of   Customs (Preventive), Gujarat v. Reliance Petroleum Ltd., (2008) 7 SCC 220.

35. In   the   judgment   of   two   learned   Judges   in  Union   of India   v.   Wood   Papers   Limited,   (1990)   4   SCC   256 [hereinafter   referred   as   ‘Wood   Papers   Ltd.   Case’  for brevity], a distinction between stage of finding out the eligibility to  seek exemption  and stage of applying  the nature of exemption was made.  Relying on the decision in  Collector of Central Excise vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd., (1989) 1 SCC 345, it was held “Do not extend or widen the ambit at the stage of applicability. But once that   hurdle   is   crossed,   construe   it   liberally”.     The reasoning   for   arriving   at   such   conclusion   is   found   in para 4 of Wood Papers Ltd. Case (supra), which reads­ “…   Literally   exemption   is   freedom   from liability, tax or duty.  Fiscally, it may assume varying   shapes,   specially,   in   a   growing economy.     For   instance   tax   holiday   to   new units,   concessional   rate   of   tax   to   goods   or persons for limited period or with the specific objective etc.   That is why its construction, unlike   charging   provision,   has   to   be   tested on   different   touchstone.     In   fact,   an exemption provision is like an exception and on   normal   principle   of   construction   or interpretation   of   statutes   it   is   construed strictly either because of legislative intention or   on   economic   justification   of   inequitable burden   or   progressive   approach   of   fiscal provisions   intended   to   augment   State revenue.   But   once   exception   or   exemption becomes   applicable   no   rule   or   principles requires   it   to   be   construed   strictly.    Truly speaking liberal and strict construction of an exemption provision are to be invoked at   different   stages   of   interpreting   it. When   the   question   is   whether   a   subject falls   in   the   notification   or   in   the exemption clause then it being in nature of   exception   is   to   be   construed   strictly and   against   the   subject,   but   once ambiguity   or  doubt   about   applicability   is lifted   and   the   subject   falls   in   the notification then full play should be given to   it   and   it   calls   for   a   wider   and   liberal construction…” (emphasis supplied)

45. In Parle Exports Case (supra), a bench of two Judges of this   Court   considered   the   question   whether   non­ alcoholic beverage base like Gold spot base, Limca base and Thumps Up base, were exempted from payment of duty   under   the   Central   Government   notification   of March, 1975.   While considering the issue, this Court pointed   out   the   Strict   interpretation   to   be   followed   in interpretation   of   a   notification   for   exemption.     These observations   are   made   in   para   17   of   the   judgment, which read 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   determing   if expensive   items   like   Gold   Spot   base   or Limca   base   of   Thums   Up   base   were covered   in   the   expression   food   products of   First   Schedule   of   Central   Excises   and Salt Act and held ‘that it should not be in consonance   with   spirit   and   the   reason   of law   to   give   exemption   for   non­alcoholic beverage   basis   under   the   notification   in question’.   Rationale or ratio is same.   Do not extend or widen the ambit at stage of applicability.     But   once   that   hurdle   is crossed   construe   it   liberally.     Since   the respondent did not fall in the first clause of the   notification   there   was   no   question   of giving the clause a liberal construction and hold   that   production   of   goods   by respondent   mentioned   in   the   notification were entitled to benefit.”