Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parle exports in A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 14 December, 2006Matching Fragments
{See also Ashoka Smokeless Coal Ind. P. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 5302 of 2006 @ SLP(C) No. 20471 of 2005 and batch, disposed of on 1st December, 2006].}
21. We may notice that a somewhat different view viz. strict construction of such notification was advocated in the case of State Level Committee and Anr. v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. , wherein, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., referring to CCE v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. , opined:
We agree with the above statement of law except insofar as it states that where two views of the exemption notification are possible, it should be construed in favour of the subject since it is contrary to the decisions afore- mentioned including the three-Judge Bench decision in Novopan India Ltd. It may be noted that this decision was referred to in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers and yet a slightly different principle enunciated. So far as decision in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation (referred to in Parle Export), rendered by a Bench comprising Tulzapurkar and R.S. Pathak, JJ., is concerned, it only holds that the expression "metal" occurring in a notification issued under U.P. Sales Tax Act should be understood in its primary sense, i.e., in the form in which it is marketable as a primary commodity. The learned Judges held that the subsequent forms evolved from the primary form constituted distinct commodities marketable as such and must be regarded as new commercial commodities and not included within the four corners of the notification. This decision cannot therefore be understood as supporting the proposition enunciated in Parle Exports with which we have disagreed. Be that as it may, the occasion for applying the said proposition arises only where there is "real difficulty, in ascertaining the meaning of a particular enactment" (statement in Parle Exports). In the case before us, there is neither any ambiguity in the language nor does the clause in question present a real difficulty in ascertaining its meaning.