9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterpretation of the provisions of Sections 5, 9, 60, 61, 62 and 78A of Electricity Supply Act, 1948 the Applicant Board forms a part and parcel of the State of Haryana? (d) Whether on a true interpretation of the provisions of the Notification No. 57 of 1975 the Applicant Board is entitled to the benefit of the exemption from levy of excise duty on the footing that it is State within the meaning of the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? (e) Whether the provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder have to be applied subject to, and so over-riden by, the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and accepting the Applicant Board as State? (f) Whether the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ambala had jurisdiction to issue show cause notice dated 21st Dec., 1982 to the Applicant Board requiring it to show cause to the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi when the latter had neither applied his mind nor directed the said Assistant Collector to issue the said show cause notice? (g) Whether the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Delhi had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said show cause notice dated 21st December, 1982 when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 988 in the following terms - 13. In the result we uphold the order of the Collector as to the excisability of the goods in issue but modify his order by setting aside the penalty and confining the demand for duty to the period of six months preceding the date of service of the show cause notice and further directing that in quantifying the duty, benefit under Notification No. 201/79 to the extent permissible, on the evidence that may be produced, ought to be granted. The matter shall accordingly be remitted to the Collector for passing fresh order in the light of the directions supra. 4. We have heard Dr. R.K. Mehra, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborthy, learned Departmental Representative for the respondent. 5. At the outset Shri L. C. Chakraborthy, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the present Reference Application is not maintainable inasmuch as all the questions posed by the applicants are inseparably connected with the question of rate of duty. To substantiate his contention he drew our attention to sub-section (1) of Sec. 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also cited the case of Gopaldass Jagat Ram Pvt. Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r purposes of assessment is apparent for, Sec. 35L(b) makes provisions for an appeal direct to the Supreme Court against such Orders, that is to say, any order passed by this Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of excise duty or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. The phrase any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise is of wide import. In the case of State Waqf Board, Madras v. Abdul Azeez Sahib, AIR 1968 Mad. 79 it was stated that the words relating to or in relation to are words of comprehensiveness which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance, depending on the contest. They are not words of restrictive content and ought not to be so construed. Adopting this meaning this Tribunal in the case of Shri Niwas Steels Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1985 (19) E.L.T. 233 held that in the light of the said meaning is the true meaning and import of the term an order relating to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise can be properly understood only when the Order is read not in isolation but alongwith pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own numerous conditions of eligibility......These conditions had to be gone into to determine whether the appellants were eligible to avail of the exemption under these Notifications or not but the basic question still remained that of the appellant s entitlement to Nil rate of duty/concessional rate of duty under these Notifications. Since Section 35G specifically bars reference to High Court in respect of any order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment..........we reject the application as not maintainable . In this case reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1978 E.L.T. (J) 311 wherein it was observed that exemption Notifications modified the rate of duty. 7. We respectfully agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Tribunal and would further like to add that the present appeal which has led to the filing of the instant Reference Application was heard by a Special Bench constituted by the President of the Tribunal for hearing such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
