2001 (3) TMI 763 - AT - Central Excise

Adjudication - Non-application of mind - Precedent - Exemption notification - Interpretation of - Bulk drugs

Summary

Issues: Claim of benefit under Notification 6/94 on bulk dry "IBUPROFEN" during 6-1-1995 to 8-2-1995; Interpretation of Notification 6/94 and its applicability post-repeal of DPCO, 1987; Incorporation by reference of repealed statute into a subsequent statute; Applicability of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in preserving the effect of repealed provisions.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Notification 6/94:
The appellants sought benefit under Notification 6/94 for bulk dry "IBUPROFEN" during a specific period. The notification exempted certain bulk drys from duty, referencing DPCO, 1987. However, DPCO, 1987 was replaced by DPCO, 1995 before the relevant period. The lower authorities denied the benefit based on this change, stating that the concession under Notification 6/94 could not apply due to the repeal of DPCO, 1987. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this decision, dismissing the relevance of a Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellants. The appeal challenged this denial during the mentioned period.

2. Incorporation by Reference and Repeal of Statute:
The appellants relied on a Supreme Court decision establishing that the repeal of a statute incorporated by reference into a subsequent statute does not affect the latter statute. The Tribunal found this ruling clear and binding, emphasizing that dismissing the relevance of a judgment is improper. Referring to Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Tribunal held that the central excise exemption notifications, including DPCO, 1987, were statutory instruments saved under this provision until the repeal and replacement by DPCO, 1995.

3. Applicability of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897:
The Tribunal analyzed the effect of Section 8(1) in preserving the references to repealed provisions in subsequent enactments. It concluded that Notifications 6/94 and 7/94, incorporating DPCO, 1987, remained valid until their amendment on 9-2-1995. Citing previous Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that the repeal of the original statute did not nullify the provisions incorporated by reference in the subsequent statute. Therefore, the benefit under Notification 6/94 was upheld until its amendment on 9-2-1995.

4. Conclusion:
Based on the interpretation of relevant statutes and legal principles, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders denying the exemption during the specified period. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the protection of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved the applicability of Notification 6/94 until its subsequent amendment. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal clarity in interpreting statutes and ensuring continuity in statutory provisions despite statutory changes.