1990 (4) TMI 55 - SC - Central Excise

EXEMPTIONS PACKING AND WRAPPING PAPER ANY FACTORY COMMENCING PRODUCTION RELATES TO FACTORY PRODUCING PAPER IN GENERAL, NOT TO COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION OF EXEMPTED ITEMS

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 163 of 1965 under Central Excises and Salt Act regarding exemption for paper production.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the High Court of Gujarat's construction of Notification No. 163 of 1965 under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The main issue was whether the exemption for paper production referred to the production of excisable goods in general or specifically to the exempted categories of paper listed in the notification. The Collector of Central Excise argued that the factory must have commenced production on or after a specific date, while the High Court disagreed with this interpretation.

2. The case involved a company established in 1942 that expanded its activities in 1965 to manufacture duplex board and packing and wrapping paper. The company sought exemption under the notification for its production attributable to both its installed capacity in 1967 and its expanded capacity. The Appellate Collector held that the exemption applied to paper produced in a factory that commenced production on or after a specific date, leading to the denial of the petitioners' claim for exemption on their capacity as it existed in 1967.

3. The High Court's interpretation focused on the key phrase "commencement of production" in the notification. The Court emphasized that the exemption was intended for specific categories of paper listed in the notification, not for all types of paper falling under Item 17. The Court analyzed the exemption provision in two parts, clarifying that it applied to factories commencing production after 31st March 1964 and to existing factories to the extent of their enlarged capacity. The Court highlighted the need to read the notification as a whole to avoid ambiguity.

4. The judgment referenced previous cases to illustrate the principles of interpreting exemption provisions liberally once the subject falls within the notification. The Court emphasized the need to avoid discriminatory or inequitable results in interpreting such provisions. The judgment highlighted the importance of harmonizing the language of the notification to ensure a fair and consistent application of the exemption.

5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the Writ Petition with costs. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the notification, emphasizing the need to consider the specific categories of paper mentioned in the exemption provision for a factory to be entitled to the exemption benefits.