9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l this order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 18-6-1984. This appeal by the Department is against the said order. 2. We have heard Shri K.P. Singh for the Department and Shri S.K. Bagaria, Advocate for the Respondents. 3. At the inception we may note that the Collector (Appeals) not merely held that the respondents were entitled to benefit of the concessional rate of duty and, therefore, the demand was not sustainable but further held that in any event the demand was barred by limitation. On this question of limitation the case for the Department is that the assessments were provisional and hence there was no question of bar of limitation. Before the lower authorities the contention for the respondents was that though the assessments were provisional it was not with reference to the benefit under the notifications but with reference to certain other disputes regarding value (not relevant with reference to the removals in issue) and hence so far as this demand is concerned the assessments cannot be said to be provisional. Shri Bagaria stated that he does not deny that the assessments were provisional, though with reference to other disputes and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice to establish that the supply was to be for educational purposes and, therefore, there is no question of the respondents independently establishing the purpose for which the paper was being received by the customer. It is essentially the above argument that had been advanced in the main, supported by certain other subsidiary submissions also. 6. The respondents have produced, along with their cross-objections, a paper book containing copies of the order dated 22-6-1979 (in the case of supply to Geetha Press) and 3 others (all dated 17-7-1979) in respect of supply to the other 3 customers mentioned above. These orders read that allocation of concessional white printing paper has been made by the Ministry of Industry of the Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Education and that the paper shall be sold at an ex-factory price of Rs. 3000/- per metric tonne excluding excise duty, sales tax and local taxes. Shri Bagaria points out that the Paper (Regulation of Production) Order and the Paper (Control) Order had been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and hence the manufacturer of paper (the respondents in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lustrative. The question, therefore, would be whether the words educational purposes are to be restricted to printing of books directly connected with school or college education only, for the reason that the enumerated purposes (though illustrative) dealt with purpose connected with schools or college education. 8. The Collector (Appeals) held that religious books are very much educational. They are more instructive and educative than the books used in the schools and colleges . We feel that it would be unnecessary for the purposes of the present appeal to consider whether such a broad proposition would be justified. We feel that it would be unnecessary to consider the issue whether all religious or all cultural books would, by their very nature, be educational. We say so since, admittedly, the supply of paper by the respondents to the 4 parties was not at their own instance and on their own initiative but in pursuance of the statutory orders issued to them based on recommendations of a Committee which had been constituted by the Ministry of Education to specifically go into the requests and recommend supply of concessional white printing paper to such publishers as may appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in para 8 of the said order that the supply of the paper by the appellant herein was for educational purposes we feel that the satisfaction of the proper officer envisaged in the Notification No. 68/76 or 69/76 both dated 16-3-1976 would not be complete merely on supply of the paper by the appellant herein. 12. We consider that in order to prevent abuse of concession in excise duty e.g. by way of diversion of the paper after its removal from the factory or by selling or misutilisation, of paper by the consignee, the proper officer would be competent to enquire into the actual use of this essential commodity. If this incidental power is not read into the notification it would mean interpreting it contrary to the well settled principles of construction of laws, namely, a construction which leads to evasion should be avoided. We consider that the incidental power to look into actual utilisation is necessary for another reason. It is that there is no nexus between the Paper (Control) Order, 1979 and either of the two exemption notifications except the commonality of the retention price in the former and the actual wholesale cash prices mentioned in the notifications. Clauses 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
