9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mm or more, and (ii) is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps. It is manifest that these two conditions are conjunctive, and therefore, the twin conditions need to be satisfied in order to avail of the concessional rate of duty - 7041-7043 OF 2002 - - - Dated:- 22-10-2010 - JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. These civil appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act) are directed against the order dated 21st January 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal), as it then existed, whereby it dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, denying it the benefit of concessional rate of Excise duty under Notifications No. 5/98-CE and 5/99- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No. 5/98-CE, was reduced to 8%. The relevant portion of the said notification reads as follows: "S.No. Chapter or heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Rate Conditions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 28. 27 Kerosene, that is to say, 8% -- any hydro-carbon oil (excluding mineral colza oil and white spirit) which has a smoke point of 18mm or more (determined in the apparatus known as smoke point lamp in the manner included in the Bureau of Indian Standards Specification ISI: 1448 (p.31)-1968 as in force for the time being) and is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps" 8% -- 5. The assessee claimed the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h November 2000. The penalty was, however, deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals). 9. The assessee, thereafter, carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. As afore-noted, the Tribunal has, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, inter alia, holding that: "8. The Notifications were, obviously, meant to be beneficial to the economically backward masses of people in our country insofar as the kerosene-related provisions were concerned. The Notifications provided concessional rates of duty in respect of kerosene which was ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. In other words, the stock was ordinarily used a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument that the word "ordinarily" used in the notifications should be understood in the same way as that word used under Section 4 of the CE Act." 10. Hence, the present appeals. 11. Mr. Alok Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, assailed the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the conditions mentioned in the notifications relate only to the quality of the kerosene, which should be such that it is capable of illumination, and the said conditions do not relate to the end-user of the kerosene. Therefore, it is immaterial for the purposes of the said notifications that the kerosene was cleared to industrial users, as long as the said kerosene was capable of illumination in oil burning lamps. Commending us t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uctive to refer to the observations made by this Court in Union of India Anr. Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 290, wherein it was held that:- "The word "ordinarily" must be given its ordinary meaning. While construing the word the Court must not be oblivious of the context in which it has been used." (See also: Union of India Ors. Vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah (1996) 6 SCC 721). 15. Similarly, in State of A.P. Vs. V. Sarma Rao Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 159, this Court held that:- "The expression "ordinarily" may mean "normally", as has been held by this Court in Kailash Chandra v. Union of India (1962) 1 S.C.R. 374 and Krishan Gopal v. Prakashchandra (1974) 1 SCC 128 but, the said expression must be understood in the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
