HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA while deciding to allow the appeal CEXA No. 63 of 2008 and G.A. No. 2891 of 2008, on 4/11/2008 in re: CCEX BOLPUR vs FREYSSINET PREFABS observed as follow : -
QUOTE : Heard Learned Counsel for the parties in this matter. It appears that only on the ground that the miscellaneous application was dismissed that there was no authorization in the appeal filed is sufficient enough to hold that the document which was filed by the appellant was not taken any note of by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the authorization letter has also been produced before us for filing the appeal in question. Since it appears from the documents that the members of the Committee constituted by Notification dated 13th May, 2005 after examining the records and the order opined that an appeal should be filed under Section 35B (1) before the CESTAT Kolkata.

Therefore, in our considered opinion, to do complete justice to the parties, it would be proper for us to remit back the matter before the learned Tribunal to reconsider the same since we feel that the mistake committed by the said authority cannot be said to be not incurable. Therefore, we would request the learned Tribunal to consider the case afresh.

Hence this appeal is allowed to this extent. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2008_hc_cal_cexa_63]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS

The Supreme Court of India, while deciding Civil Appeal No. 4491 of 2002 with C.A. Nos. 4492-4494 of 2002, decided on 12/03/2008 in re: ORIENT TRADERS vs C.T.O., TIRUPATI observed as follows : -

QUOTE : It is well established principle that the exemption notifications are to be construed strictly, reference may be made to STATE OF JHARKAND & Others vs TATA CUMMINS LTD and another, 2006 (4) SCC 57 and KARTAR ROLLING MILLS vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI – 2006 (4) SCC 772. If the intention of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, then it is not open to the courts to add words in the exemption notification to extend the benefit to other items which do not find mention in the notification. In the present case, there is no ambiguity in the expression used in the G.O. The intention of the State Government is clear that only gold bullion and specie is entitled to the concessional rate of tax. Under the circumstances, the same cannot be extended to the silver as claimed by the assessee.

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2008_sc_ca_4491]

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS intention of the legislature, intention of the State Government