9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 96/72, dated 17-3-72. Under the amended notification, motor vehicle parts including pistons were exempt from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon, provided it was proved that they were to be used as original equipment (O.E.) parts by manufacturers of motor - vehicles, and the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules was followed. 3. Under Notification No. 71/78, various goods as specified in the Table annexed to that notification were exempt from excise duty up to a value of Rs. 5 lakhs in a financial year. This exemption was subject to a number of conditions, some general and some specific for particular goods. The condition relevant to the present cases is that in para 2 of the notification, which reads as under :- 2. Nothing contained in this notification shall, in so far as goods of the description specified against serial number 41 of the said Table, apply to manufacturers of such goods who avail of the exemption under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and insurance) No. 101/71-Centrat Excises, dated the 29th May, 1971, or under the notification of the-Government of India in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unfairly discriminated against in comparison with other manufacturers who did not supply their goods to manufacturers who availed themselves of Notification No. 71/78. 6. Opposing these arguments, Shri A.K. Jain, SDR, submitted the following arguments :- (a) Under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, the liability to pay duty is on the manufacturer of the goods. The liability is to be discharged under Rule 9. It is not taken away by the provisions of Chapter X. This liability was discharged only through the operation of Notification No. 101/71 under Rule 8(1). Therefore the appellants had availed themselves of this notification; (b) There was no warrant for reading into para 2 of Notification No. 71/78 a provision that parts of parts were under consideration. (c) The substance of an exemption notification is not taken away merely because it contains conditions of one kind or other; (d) There are clear rulings regarding the effect of legislation by incorporation and legislation by reference. This concept has relevance to Acts and not to notifications. It has reference only to questions of procedure. The Tribunal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red merely to Notification No. 101/71, and not to that notification as amended , the appellants did not come within the mischief of the exclusion in para 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants sought to rely on well-known pronouncements on the subject of legislation by reference and legislation by incorporation. It was pointed out to him that this would be more a case of legislation by reference than one of legislation by incorporation. But there is another important reason why this argument has to fail. Shri Jain made the very valid point that at the time of Notification No. 71/78 was issued, that is on 1-3-78, Notification No. 101/71, dated.29-5-71 already stood amended by Notification No. 96/72, dated 17-3-72. The various pronouncements on the question of legislation by incorporation or by reference are concerned with a situation where the previous Act is amended after the subsequent Act has been enacted. That is not so here, and therefore those pronouncements do not have a bearing on the present case. What the learned Advocate for the appellants is asking us to do is to assume that when Notification No. 71/78 was issued, referring to Notification No. 101/71, the compet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced in the area comprised in the new district continued to be liable to the rate of duty specified for Zone I. 12. In their judgment the Gauhati High Court held (briefly speaking) that the expression the district of Lakhimpur continued even after 22-9-1971 to have the meaning which it had when the notification dated 1-5-1970 was issued. However, on and after 5-11-81, those words should be understood as applying to the district of Lakhimpur as in existence on that date, that is, excluding areas covered by the new district of Dibrugarh. In their Judgment their Lordships of the Gauhati High Court made the following observations :- 11-. With this backdrop let us construe the notification of 1970. It is the common case of the parties that the expressions the district of Lakhimpur" was used by the rule making authority as the area comprising the physical boundary of the district including the sub-division of Dibrugarh. This is the natural meaning of the expression. We also hold that the words the district of Lakhimpur , were used precisely and exactly, not loosely and inexactly. We also hold that the words used in the notification bore the idea of the then existing districts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e wording of para 2 as it stands which would support this argument, nor is it permissible to read into the paragraph words which are not there. 14. As regards the argument based on the grounds of equity, Shri Jain had rightly pointed out that such considerations do not affect the interpretation of a fiscal statute. In any event these considerations are hardly relevant to the case. It was entirely for the concerned manufacturer to decide whether he should sell his goods only to buyers who did not seek the application of Notification No. 101/71, and thereby keep alive his claim for the benefit of Notification No. 71/78; or whether he should sell his goods to buyers who invoked Notification No. 101/71, with consequent prejudice to his claim to the benefit of Notification No. 71/78 in respect of such goods sold to other buyers. This was a matter for the appellant s commercial judgment. Having made his choice on the basis of commercial judgment, the appellant cannot avoid the consequences on grounds of equity. 15. We accordingly find that the orders of the lower authorities in these case were correct. Appeal No. 1250/82-B1 accordingly has to fail. Consequently appeals Nos. 1164/82 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
