Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

35. There is therefore no justification for the Respondent No. 1 to take a view contrary to the earlier decisions taken on the identical facts and in respect of the same notification,

36. The respondents have called in aid the principle enunciated in the decision of V.V. Iyer v. Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastik Woollen (P) Ltd, to the effect that where two views are possible and the authorities adopt one of such views which cannot be termed to be unreasonable, the authorities' finding cannot be interfered with by the High Court. This principle appears to be in direct conflict with the well-known norm of construction that in the event of ambiguity in a fiscal statute the construction beneficial to the assessee should be adopted. The case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I and Anr. v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd., is an authority for the latter proposition. There the Supreme Court held "When two views of a notification are possible, it should be construed in favour of the subject".