1989 (11) TMI 131 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the Tribunal was was right that Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79 were different enactments and the amendment to one could not be read into the other? Held that - In the present case, the excisable goods, namely, polyester fibre were not wholly exempt from duty nor chargeable to nil rate of duty. It cannot be read in the notification that the notification would not be available in case non-excisable goods arise during the course of manufacture. In fact, the Tribunal seems to have erred in not bearing in mind that exemption notification was pressed in service in respect of polyester fibre which is excisable goods and not in respect of methanol which arises as a by-product as a part and parcel of chemical reaction. It appears further on a comparison of the Rule 56A and the Notifn. No. 201/79 that these deal with the identical situation. The Tribunal, therefore, should have taken into consideration the trade notice for interpretation of exemption Notifn. No. 201/79, which was para materia with Rule 56A. Appeal allowed as the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion it did

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to set-off duty on ethylene glycol used in the manufacture of polyester fibre.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 201/79 and its amendment by Notification No. 102/81.
3. Comparison and interpretation of Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79.
4. Interpretation of trade notices and their applicability to the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to set-off duty on ethylene glycol used in the manufacture of polyester fibre:
The appellant was engaged in manufacturing polyester fibre using ethylene glycol and DMT. They claimed set-off of duty on ethylene glycol under Notification No. 201/79. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise initially denied the set-off for ethylene glycol content in methanol, glycol residual waste, and polyester fibre waste. The appellant argued that ethylene glycol was used entirely in the manufacture of polyester fibre, and any waste or by-product was recycled within the factory. The Tribunal initially upheld the revenue's contention that prior to 11-4-1981, there was no provision entitling credit for duty paid on inputs resulting in waste or by-product. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellants were not engaged in the production of methanol but in the production of polyester fibre, and methanol arose as a part of the chemical reaction.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 201/79 and its amendment by Notification No. 102/81:
Notification No. 201/79 exempted excisable goods from duty equivalent to the duty paid on inputs used in their manufacture. The notification was amended by Notification No. 102/81, which stated that credit of duty on inputs could not be denied even if part of the input was contained in waste, refuse, or by-product. The Tribunal had initially held that the amendment was not retrospective and did not apply before 11-4-1981. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the notification should be interpreted to allow credit for duty paid on inputs, even if part of the input resulted in non-excisable by-products like methanol.

3. Comparison and interpretation of Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79:
The appellants contended that Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79 were pari materia. Rule 56A allowed credit for duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of excisable goods, even if part of the material was contained in waste or by-products. The Tribunal initially rejected this comparison, stating that Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79 were different enactments. However, the Supreme Court found that the provisions of Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79 were identical and should be interpreted similarly.

4. Interpretation of trade notices and their applicability to the case:
The appellants relied on a trade notice issued by the Pune Collectorate, which clarified that proforma credit under Rule 56A was permissible even if a fully exempt product was consumed in the manufacture of the finished product. The Tribunal initially dismissed the applicability of this trade notice to Notification No. 201/79. However, the Supreme Court held that the trade notice was applicable and should have been considered for interpreting the exemption notification. The court emphasized that exemption notifications should be interpreted to give full effect to their purpose, and the trade notice clarified the government's intention.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in denying the set-off of duty on ethylene glycol used in the manufacture of polyester fibre. The court restored the orders of the Collector (Appeals), allowing the set-off of duty. The Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79 was found to be incorrect, and the trade notice was deemed applicable for interpreting the exemption notification. The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

← Previous Next →