9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 31-3-1992 (and effective from 1-4-1992) and by Notification No. 67/92-C.E., dated 22-5-1992 which suspended the amendment carried out by Notification No. 55/92 during the period from 22-5-1992 to 31-3-1993. 2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it is appropriate to set out the relevant extracts of (i) para 4 of the said Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as it stood before 1-4-1992; (ii) Notification No. 55/92-C.E., dated 31-3-1992 and effective from 1-4-1992; and (iii) Notification No. 67/92-C.E., dated 22-5-1992 :- (i) Relevant extracts of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as it stood before 1-4-1992 : 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall be applicable only to a factory which is an undertaking registered with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.E. effective from 1-4-1992 : The Central Govt., being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 175/86-Central Excises, dated the 1st March, [1986] namely :- In the said notification, - (a) in paragraph 4, for the second proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely : Provided further that nothing contained in clause (b) of the first proviso shall apply in a case where a manufacturer who is manufacturing specified goods in a factory has availed of the exemption in pursuance of clause (a) of the said proviso in any of the preceding financial year . 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 55/92-C.E. w.e.f. 1-4-1992 in view of the wording of the amendment to the effect that second proviso shall be kept in abeyance during the period from 22-5-1992 to 31-3-1993. The words - kept in abeyance are indicative of that intention of reviving the old proviso. In other words, the operation of Notification No. 55/92-C.E., dated 1-4-1992, in so far as it related to 2nd proviso in para 4 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was kept in abeyance from 22-5-1992 till 31-3-1993. 3.4 On the other hand, Revenue contends that Notification No. 55/92-C.E. substituted a new second proviso in para 4 w.e.f.1-4-1992 disentitling the DGTD - registered units from availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. This disentitlement continued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in para 4 by making Clause (b) inoperative. Notification No. 67/92-C.E., dated 22-5-1992 does not revive, in specific terms, the 2nd proviso in para 4 as it stood before 1-4-1992. Its only effect is to lift non-operation of Clause (b) and make it operative during 22-5-1992 to 31-3-1993. Hence this plea of the learned Consultant is rejected. 4.1 Next plea of the learned Consultant, Shri Chattopadhyay is that the expression, as a small-scale industry occurring in para 4 after the words Development Commissioner (S.S.I.) - qualify the latter expression only and not the earlier words - Director of Industries . In other words, his contention is that registration with Director of Industries need not be as a small-scale industry; even if suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l excisable goods" - as it occurs in Clause (b) of the said proviso. Obviously, he further submits, the words - of all excisable goods - cannot be read after the word - clearances - in Clause (a). Had it been so, there was no need for Clause (a) because in that event Clause (b) of the first proviso would have covered the ambit of Clause (a). There was no need to carve out a separate Clause (a). Therefore, the word - clearances - occurring in Clause (a) can only mean clearances of specified goods. In other words, an unit having clearances of specified goods not exceeding Rs. 7.5 lakhs in the preceding financial year would not require a registration with D.I. or D.C. (S.S.I.) as a small scale industry and yet be entitled to avail of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. Learned Consultant is right that it cannot be qualified by the words - of all excisable goods because in that case Clause (a) would become redundant as a category separate from Clause (b); Clause (b) would cover Clause (a) as well. Learned S.D.R. s plea cannot be accepted because Clauses (a) and (b) of the first proviso are exceptions to the condition of registration as a S.S.I. unit in the main para 4. In other words, by virtue of the exceptions, some units may go beyond the popular parlance of S.S.I. unit and they would still be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 (as amended), so long as they satisfy either exception (a) or exception (b) of 1st proviso to para 4. It is well-known dictum that `exceptions only go to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
