2000 (7) TMI 103 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Revision Applications against Order-in-Appeal
- Interpretation of CBEC Circular No. 129/40/95-CX
- Statutory Provisions vs. Executive Instructions

Revision Applications against Order-in-Appeal:
The case involved Revision Applications filed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise against Order-in-Appeal No. 178-181/2000 CE/Commr. (A)/Ahd, challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding the sanction of rebate claim amounting to Rs. 25,24,908/- for duty paid on yarn upon importation by M/s. Arvind Mills Ltd. under the DEEC scheme. The key question was whether the CBEC Circular could restrict the grant of rebate as per the provisions of Notification No. 42/94-C.E.(N.T.) dated 22-9-1994 and Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Interpretation of CBEC Circular No. 129/40/95-CX:
The applicant Commissioner based their application on CBEC Circular No. 129/40/95-CX, which clarified that input duty rebate could not be claimed for exports under the DEEC scheme if the Advance Licence was issued before 31-3-95. However, the Government analyzed the case in light of legal principles and past judgments. The Government emphasized that statutory provisions, rules, and notifications hold more weight than executive instructions. The Circular did not have the force to alter the provisions of Rule 12 read with Notification No. 42/94, leading the Government to uphold the lower authority's order.

Statutory Provisions vs. Executive Instructions:
The judgment extensively referred to legal precedents to highlight the importance of interpreting statutes based on clear language without room for intendment. Various Supreme Court cases were cited to emphasize that statutory interpretations must align with the intention of the maker as evidenced by the words used. The Court reiterated that in case of doubt in a taxing statute, the benefit should be given to the assessee. Ultimately, the Government rejected the Revision Applications, concluding that the CBEC Circular could not override the statutory provisions, and the lower authority's decision was appropriate and legally sound.

In conclusion, the judgment delved into the conflict between executive instructions and statutory provisions, emphasizing the supremacy of the latter. The decision underscored the need to interpret legal provisions based on clear language and established legal principles, ultimately leading to the rejection of the Revision Applications filed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise.