9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as amended from time to time. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellants for two different periods raising demand of duties as shown below on the ground that the number of average workers employed in the appellants factory exceeded 49 and as such the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the notification in question :- Date of the show cause notice Period Duty demanded 25-2-1980 12-1-1977 to 30-6-1977 Rs. 1,33,038.09 2-4-1980 5-7-1977 to 19-12-1979 Rs. 5,52,473.19 Penalty Rs. 1.5 lakhs 3. Shri K.K. Banerjee, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the matter was earlier adjudicated by the Commissioner vide his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied the benefit should have been extended. He submits that the word and used in the said notification was subsequently corrected by amending Notification No. 94/77-C.E., dated 21-5-1977 which amended the Notification No. 88/77 which superseded Notification No. 103/76. This submits the ld. Advocate was a corrective measure and the exemption notification should be interpreted in such a way that effectuates objects, intent and scheme. Arguing further he submits that presuming though denying that the number of workers as reflected in the return filed with the Directorate of Factories for the half year ending on 30-6-1977 was correct, the same would have effect for the period 1-7-1977 to 30-6-1978 inasmuch as the notification in question prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion should be read as or is not acceptable as and is used in the sense of conjunctive word. The mere fact that the subsequent Notification No. 88/77 (where initially the word and was used) was amended by Notification No. 94/77-C.E., dated 21-5-1977 wherein the word and was substituted by or will not mean with the word and appearing in Notification 103/76 should be read as or . At the most it could be argued that the amendment brought in Notification No. 88/77 w.e.f. 21-5-1977 may have retrospective effect and would be treated as clarificatory in so far as Notification No. 88/77 was concerned. The same will have no effect for the purposes of Notification No. 103/76 which clearly uses the expression and . As such we hold that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the records maintained by the appellants as regards the number of workers instead of relying upon the return filed with the Directorate of Industries. 7. As regards the appellants contention that it is the number of workers working on any day during the preceding 12 months which is the criteria for availing the benefit of notification during the next financial year and as the Commissioner has relied upon the half yearly return filed with the Directorate of Industries for the half year ending 30-6-1977, the benefit of the notification, if at all, could be denied for the period 1-7-1977 to 30-6-1998 and not beyond the said period. We agree with the above submission of the ld. Advocate for denying the benefit of the notification for a par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
