Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (11) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mplementing their scheme proposed under Notification No. 282/82-C.E., dated 27-11-1982 for granting excise incentive credit to manufacturers of certain excisable goods. The goods in respect of which the incentive was given were listed in Tables A and B annexed to Notification 283/82-C.E. Those goods included tyres and flaps mentioned at Serial Numbers 2 and 4 respectively of Table B. The respondent in this appeal was engaged in the manufacture of tyres and flaps among other goods. Notification No. 283/82-C.E. provided that, in respect of excisable goods (specifically described in Tables A B) cleared from a factory for home consumption during the period commencing on and from the 1st day of March 1982 and ending with the 28th day of Februa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ps manufactured and cleared by the respondents for home consumption during the incentive period (1-3-1982 to 28-2-1983) were (as noted earlier) goods specified in Table B to the Notification and the same were chargeable to duty of Excise with reference to value and the effective rates of duty leviable under the Central Excise Act on the goods were not more than 20% ad valorem. Therefore, a credit of an amount equal to one-fifth of the duty paid on the clearances in excess of base clearances (as defined above) effected during the base period (1-3-1981 to 28-2-1982) defined under the Explanation to the Notification was available to those goods for the incentive period. The dispute involved in the present appeal is on how to compute the base c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entive claim in relation to the amount of Rs. 2,31,111.37 in Basic Excise Duty (BED) and Rs. 23,111.14 in Special Excise Duty (SED) paid under protest on 31-3-1984. This was on the ground that the duties were paid neither during the base period nor during the incentive period. A credit of Rs. 2,56,233.21 in SED which had been sanctioned to the assessee earlier but could not be utilised was, however, allowed by the AC, subject to the procedure prescribed by the Department. In the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) examined the provisions of Notification No. 283/82-C.E. and determined the period of closure of the respondent s factory as 66 days from 25-7-1981 to 28-9-1981 and all .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... od in terms of Explanation to the Notification. In support of this argument, ld. JDR relied on the Finance Minister's speech made on the occasion of presentation of Annual Budget for 1982-83 in the Lok Sabha. The DR specifically referred to para 135 of the text of the Finance Minister s speech, which is extracted below : 135. As the House is aware, 1982 has been designated by the Prime Minister as the Productivity Year . With the improvement in infrastructural facilities, it is hoped that industrial production would register further growth in the current year. The fiscal mechanism could be judiciously deployed in furthering this objective. With this in view, I propose to formulate a scheme of excise duty concession for increased product .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n para 135 of the text of the speech would be a reliable aid for understanding the legislative intent underlying the Notification and for interpreting the provisions thereof. The scheme itself was to encourage production of specified goods in 1982-83. It is, therefore, reasonable only to accept ld. DR s contention that it is the production, rather than clearance, of the specified goods during the base period that should be the yardstick for computing the period of operation of the factory. Conversely, any spell of closure of the factory during the base period would be one of non-production rather than of non-clearance. Therefore, any clearance of the specified goods during the period 29-9-1981 to 1-10-1981 cannot interrupt the period of clo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates