Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Hansraj Gordhandas vs H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector Of ... on 27 September, 1968
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave - (1996) 2 SCR 253, held that such a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i.e., by the plain terms of the exemption.
From the above notification we are of the considered view that the adjudicating authority had correctly held that the appellant factory was working through out the year and complied the conditions of the notification and eligible for the benefit of the notification. It is not the case of the department that the appellants not processed green leaves for small growers. The benefit of exemption is intended to promote small growers having less than 10 hectares. The appellants used not less than two thirds of green leaves which were procured from small growers. The exemption notification should be read and interpreted in right perspective. By respectfully following the Honble Supreme Court decision above, we hold that the appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 4/1999. Accordingly, we uphold the adjudication order and the impugned order passed by the LAA is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 39 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Jayakumar R Nair vs Union Of India . on 20 July, 2015
15.1 The assessee had relied upon the decision of the Honble High Court of Madras pronounced in the case of R. Vijayakumar Vs. UOI reported in 2000 (122) ELT 670 (Mad.), I find that this decision is not in support of the assessee as the same had dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the conditions stipulated in Sl.No. III (b) (ii) and the portion of the explanation in the preceding financial year of Notification No. 41/99-CE dated 26.11.99 as illegal and ultravires Article 14 read with Article 39 (C) of the Constitution of India.
1