Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)
Lupin Limited vs Commissioner, Cgst & Central Excise ... on 23 March, 2023 cites

Government Of Kerala vs Mother Superior Adoration Convent on 1 March, 2021

In our view we are supported by the decision of the Apex Court in Government of Kerala & Anr. Vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent (supra), where it has been held that the beneficial purpose of the exemption must be given full effect to and before interpreting a statute, "we must first ask ourselves what is the object sought to be achieved by the provision and construe the statute in accordance with such object". The Court went ahead to hold that in the event of any ambiguity in such construction, such ambiguity must be in favour of that which is exempted. On the principle that there is a clear distinction between exemptions which are to be strictly interpreted as opposed to beneficial exemptions having the purpose of encouragement or promotion of certain activities, the Court relied on several decisions. It is relevant to quote the para from the said judgment:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 24 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Commissioner Of C. Ex., Trichy vs Rukmani Pakkwell Traders on 17 February, 2004

7. In rebuttal, the main thrust of the Learned Authorised Representative was on the scope of remand as the matter was remanded by this Tribunal on limited issue to ascertain the time limit after verifying the date of payment of service tax and in the event of any delay, whether the same could be condoned. Referring to the decisions in J.J. Meridian Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2015 (325) ELT 417 (SC), and Commissioner of C. Ex. Trichy Vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders -2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC), he relied on the general principles of interpretation of the exemption notification, to say that it has to be construed strictly and also pleaded the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

M/S Gmr Aerospace Engineering Limited vs Union Of India on 27 December, 2018

15. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in GMR Aerospace Engineering Limited Vs. Union of India- 2019 (31) GSTL 596 (A.P.) after analysing the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005 and the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 concluded that the notification issued under section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be pressed into service for finding out whether a unit in SEZ qualifies for exemption or not.
Telangana High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 2 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

M/S G.P.Ceramics Pvt.Ltd vs Commr.Trade Tax Up on 19 November, 2008

23. From what has been observed by the adjudicating authority is that for the period January to March 2017, service tax was paid prior to 01.10.2016 and the refund claim was filed on 10.10.2017 and therefore it is beyond the period of one year. Even, if one calculates the actual delay the same appears to be somewhere around 10 days or so. Similarly, for the period April to June, 2016 service tax was paid prior to 01.03.2017 and refund claim was filed on 28.03.2018. In both the cases, the delay is neither exorbitant nor unreasonable which on the face of it cannot be condoned. We are, therefore of the view that the adjudicating authority should have considered the issue of condonation of delay taking a wider and liberal approach. It is the well established principle that the eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, however once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally, G. P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP 2009 (2) SCC 90, Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Vs. State Bihar 2004 (7) SCC 642, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai Vs. M. Ambalal & Company 2011 (2) SCC 74.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 24 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 29 September, 2004

23. From what has been observed by the adjudicating authority is that for the period January to March 2017, service tax was paid prior to 01.10.2016 and the refund claim was filed on 10.10.2017 and therefore it is beyond the period of one year. Even, if one calculates the actual delay the same appears to be somewhere around 10 days or so. Similarly, for the period April to June, 2016 service tax was paid prior to 01.03.2017 and refund claim was filed on 28.03.2018. In both the cases, the delay is neither exorbitant nor unreasonable which on the face of it cannot be condoned. We are, therefore of the view that the adjudicating authority should have considered the issue of condonation of delay taking a wider and liberal approach. It is the well established principle that the eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, however once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally, G. P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP 2009 (2) SCC 90, Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Vs. State Bihar 2004 (7) SCC 642, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai Vs. M. Ambalal & Company 2011 (2) SCC 74.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 39 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Commnr. Of Customs, Mumbai vs M/S. M. Ambalal & Co on 9 December, 2010

23. From what has been observed by the adjudicating authority is that for the period January to March 2017, service tax was paid prior to 01.10.2016 and the refund claim was filed on 10.10.2017 and therefore it is beyond the period of one year. Even, if one calculates the actual delay the same appears to be somewhere around 10 days or so. Similarly, for the period April to June, 2016 service tax was paid prior to 01.03.2017 and refund claim was filed on 28.03.2018. In both the cases, the delay is neither exorbitant nor unreasonable which on the face of it cannot be condoned. We are, therefore of the view that the adjudicating authority should have considered the issue of condonation of delay taking a wider and liberal approach. It is the well established principle that the eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, however once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally, G. P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP 2009 (2) SCC 90, Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Vs. State Bihar 2004 (7) SCC 642, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai Vs. M. Ambalal & Company 2011 (2) SCC 74.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 42 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Formica India Division vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 29 March, 1995

25. Also in Formica India Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1995 (77) ELT 511, the Apex Court observed that once a view is taken that a party would have been entitle to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirements of the concerned rule, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical grounds that the time when they could have done so had elapsed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 36 - S P Bharucha - Full Document
1