9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the year ending February, 1983 claiming higher production concession under Rule 56-AA. On receipt of the said claim and during the scrutiny it was observed that the appellants have not taken into consideration the closure period during 1981-82 when the factory had remained closed for a period of more than 15 days as per the provisions of Notification No. 283/82 for determining the base clearance during the base period of production, that is to say, 1981-82. As a sequel thereof a Show Cause Notice dated 29-8-1983 was issued to the appellants. In reply the appellants, inter alia, stated that there was illegal tool down strike by the workers for total 45 days, that is to say, from 8-9-1981 to 22-10-1981 and that they do not consider this strike period as closure of the factory since the plant was operating, steam was generated and electricity was produced to run the plant coupled with the fact that the entire staff continued to be on duty. However, the Asstt. Collector did not agree with the said contention of the appellants by observing that this contention is not acceptable as during the period of tool down strike there were no production/clearances of any excisable goods and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was that if we go by the language used in the Notification No. 283/82 and its direct meaning it would be clear that production incentive is related to clearances and not production and applying this meaning to the facts of the present case it would appear that there was tool down strike by the workers during the period in question but the factory was otherwise functioning. 4. In reply Shri R.M. Ramchandani, learned SDR while supporting the impugned order submitted that the case of Collector of Central Excise v. M/s. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd., supra cited at the Bar is distinguishable. 5. We have considered the submissions. The crucial question involved for our decision in the instant case is whether the factory of the appellant remained closed for a period of 43 days i.e. to say from 8-9-1981 to 21-10-1981 excluding 8 and 9-9-1981 as held by the Collector (Appeals) within the meaning of Explanation (1) (b) of Notification No. 283/82-CE, dated 27-11-1982 which speaks of production incentive . In order to appreciate the controversy in hand it would be advantageous to refer to the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the Notification No. 283/82-CE, date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of more than 15 days at one time during the base period under sub-clause (b) of Clause (1) of the said Explanation. As stated above, it was the case of the appellant that during the aforesaid period the entire plant, special Polysection were kept heated up by the officers and the staff by keeping boilers on a steam and it was although on duty during the said period, though there was a tool down strike by the workers. It was their further contention that the officers and staff continued to come in all the three shifts and boilers/generators were kept working for keeping the system in animation as stoppage of heat by polysection could be disastrous and as such the appellant kept the entire system in working condition. Consequently, during the said period it cannot be said that the factory of the appellant had remained closed. The Assistant Collector while adjudicating the case has held that the said contention of the appellant cannot be accepted as during the said period of tool down strike there was no production/clearances of any excisable goods, and it tantamounts to closure. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) also upheld the said findings of the Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a restrictive meaning (See Beckford v. Wade (1805) 34 ER 34 (PC) and Phillips v. Poland (1866) LR 1 CP 204). In other words since general words have ordinarily a general meaning, the first task in construing such words, as in construing any word, is to give the words their plain and ordinary meaning and then to see whether the context or some principle of construction requires that some qualified meaning should be placed on those words [See Gardiner v. Admiralty Commrs. (1964) 2 All ER 93; H.K. Chowdhary v. Issardas, AIR 1965 SC 1647]. In the present case when we turn to the Notification in hand for production incentive, we find that the Notification under reference itself relates to the concession being given when clearances during the incentive period exceed the clearances of the base year. Right through, the Notification deals with clearances and not with production and for the purpose of determining the base clearances Explanation (1) has been added to the said Notification providing the mode and procedure for calculating the base clearances. It is in two parts. Clause (a) deals with a situation where a factory had not remained closed for a period of more than 15 days at on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
