9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate notifications also indicates that the benefit on both is not available at the same time. Merely by the fact that Form ARE-2 is providing either to claim the rebate on finished goods or on inputs used in manufacture of such goods, it cannot be culled out that the same is available on both i.e. finished goods as well as on the inputs. Merely by preparation of any combined form for both the benefits, the word “or” cannot be construed as “and” to be used conjunctively. The statutory Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of 2002, which have been framed, make it clear that that exemption of duty or rebate is not available on both i.e. inputs as well as finished goods; same is available only on one and such intendment has to be given full effect to - Therefore, decided against assessee. - D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2012 - Arun Mishra and Dr. Meena V. Gomber, JJ. Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Counsel, for the Petitioner Shri Anil Mehta, Counsel, for the Respondent ORDER Heard finally. The writ petitions have been preferred questioning the legality of orders passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufactured goods is exempted under the said Rule. As such, when the petitioner has opted for Rule 18, he cannot be put at a disadvantageous situation in the matter of claiming such rebate. 6. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned orders. He has submitted that there is no reason to read the word or as and , in the context and manner in which it has been used in Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002. A plain reading of the Rule makes it clear that the rebate of duty paid on inputs and rebate of duty paid on finished goods are different stages; as such, they are not admissible simultaneously. Rebate of duty on inputs has already been allowed, as such, the petitioner cannot claim the same on finished exported goods; the opinion formed by the concerned authorities in this regard is appropriate. Thus, no case for interference is made out. 7. Firstly, we come to the question of interpretation of Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002, which reads thus :- Rule 18. Rebate of duty. - Where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring on behalf of the respondents has also relied upon decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Manmohan Das Shah Ors. v. Bishun Das, AIR 1967 SC 643 in which the Apex Court has laid down that the ordinary rule of construction is that a provision of a statute must be construed in accordance with the language used therein unless there are compelling reasons, such as, where a literal construction would reduce the provision to absurdity or prevent the manifest intention of the Legislature from being carried out. The Apex Court in Manmohan Das Shah (supra) has laid down thus :- (6)...The ordinary rule of construction is that a provision of a statute must be construed in accordance with the language used therein unless there are compelling reasons, such as, where a literal construction would reduce the provision to absurdity or prevent the manifest intention of the Legislature from being carried out. There is no reason why the word or should be construed otherwise than in its ordinary meaning. If the construction suggested by Mr. Desai were to be accepted and the word or were to be construed as meaning and it would mean that the construction should not only be such as materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommission Act is able to achieve the objective for which it has been made and the UGC is able to perform its duties and responsibilities, and further that the State enactment does not come in conflict with the central legislation and create any hindrance or obstacle in the working of the latter, it is necessary to read the expression established or incorporated as established and incorporated insofar as the private Universities are concerned. 11. On plain reading of Rule 18, it is apparent that if the word or is disjunctive, no absurd result occurs, rather the intention which is manifested in Rule 18 has also been given full effect to give the benefit admissible on one of the item, either on finished goods or inputs used in the manufacture or processing of such goods. Rule 19 also does not provide for rebate on inputs, it provides for rebate on goods manufactured. 12. Coming to the submission raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with respect to Notification No. 19/2004-Central Excise (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 which has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 and in supersession of the Ministry of Finance, De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different interpretation of the rule and the form which is part of the notification, cannot govern the interpretation of the rule; it has to be harmoniously interpreted with the rule and cannot substitute the rule or supersede it. 13. The statutory Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of 2002, which have been framed, make it clear that that exemption of duty or rebate is not available on both i.e. inputs as well as finished goods; same is available only on one and such intendment has to be given full effect to. 14. At this stage, with respect to Writ Petition No. 4470/2012, Mr. Jhanwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also pressed for alternative claim under Rule 19 of the Rules of 2002, procedure of which was not followed admittedly nor adhered to. As such, benefit of Rule 19 could not have been pressed at the stage of passing of order, as essential requirement of Rule 19 is that a person from the Department is posted at the factory premises and under his supervision, goods are to be exported, which is not done in the instant case. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the writ petitions being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
