9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrugated board has been produced out of kraft paper or out of paper and paper board of the type known as kraft liner or corrugating medium of a substance equal to or exceeding 65 grammes per sq. metre, in each case, and on which the duty of excise has been paid at the rate of thirty-seven and half per cent ad valorem, then such corrugated board shall be exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon." On the same day another notification No. 15/78-C.E. was promulgated exempting- "All sorts of paper commonly known as kraft paper, including paper and paper board of the type known as kraft liner or corrugating medium of a substance equal to or exceeding 65 grammes per sq. metre in each case from duty in excess of 37.5% ad valorem." 4. The appellants, however, point out that the duty that had been paid on the kraft paper used in their factory in the manufacture of corrugated board had paid duty at rates which would not exceed 30% ad valorem by virtue of notification No. 127/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977. This 30% duty was further reduced by amounts ranging from 50% to 75% by notification No. 128/77-C.E. If the installed capacity was higher than 10,000 tonnes, the exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r manufactured by the paper mills is entitled to the concession granted by virtue of Notification No. 128/77." 7. However, the Department took the view that since the kraft paper had not paid duty of 37.5%, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 14/78-C.E. was not available and this was how the proceedings started leading upto the Order-in-Appeal, which resulted in the rejection of the appellants case. The appellants claim in their appeal that the kraft paper used by the petitioner should be deemed to have already borne duty at the enhanced rate laid down in Notification 15/78-C.E., and, therefore, their corrugated board was entitled to the exemption under notification 14/78-C.E. 8. We are not able to follow this argument because it is known, and there seems to be no dispute about this, that the kraft paper had not paid the duty of 37.5%. The appellants seem to merely rely on the clarifications given by the government and by the Collectorate and what they call the intention underlying this scheme and duty exemptions given on 24-1-1978. A look at the trade notice dated 7-2-1978 issued by the Nagpur Collectorate show that the words reproduced below were taken fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to; and that "the Union Government and its officers are not entitled at their mere whim to ignore the promises made by the Government". But we can see no promise made by the Government or by its officers, and we, therefore, cannot see that this decision will give them much aid and comfort. 13. The Counsel also quoted the Gujarat High Court decision in M/s. Navgujarat Paper Industries v. Superintendent of Central Excise & Others 1978 CENCUS/750=1977 E.L.T. (J 67) (Guj.) which followed the above decision in Anglo Afgan Agencies of the Supreme Court. But for reasons, we have mentioned above, this decision will not help the appellants much either. 14. Another case quoted in support by the appellants is 1980 E.L.T. 6 (Boon.) M/s. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. v. Union of India and others. A notice had been issued by the Collector specifying that die-cast rotors were only at the intermediate stage of production and that they were not fit for use as rotors, and therefore, they should not be classified as rotors under Item 30(4) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Court said that the Government is estopped from contending to the contrary. But nobody here has contended contrary to any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5%an absurdity. The condition for this exemption is payment of 37.5% duty, not just an indeterminate "appropriate rate of duty". We are asked to repudiate the clear written word of the law and accept only a part as fulfilling the whole. 18. A few decisions of the Tribunal were quoted by the appellants but these all say that a trade notice was binding on the Department and that the department was not entitled to reverse the classification or the announcement made in the trade notice. But the case before us is not one where the Department had given any promise by which it ought to be estopped. We are not to consider in the case before us whether there has been a promise and whether the law of estoppel will operate against the Department. We are on a plain case of the Department having issued clarifications and notice none of which gave the promise that the appellants sought or hoped for. The notices and clarifications were badly drafted, to be sure, but the meaning that does come through from their uncertain diction is that the duty at 5% was to be paid, and not that nil duty was earned by the paper board even if made from kraft paper on which the duty of 37.5% is not shown to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing that the Government clarification relied upon by the appellants says that- "The stipulated full duty exemption on corrugated board is available subject to the condition that the proper Officer is satisfied that such corrugated board has been produced out of kraft paper or out of paper and paper board of the type known as kraft liner or corrugating medium of a substance equal to or exceeding 65 gsm, in each case, which has paid duty at the enhanced rate of 37.5% ad valorem in terms of Notification 15/78-C.E." This is just the contrary of what the appellants say was the Government promise. 21. The appellants had once canvassed the view that because of an amendment on 26-8-1978 which substituted the words "on which appropriate duty, if any, has been paid" for the words "duty has been paid at the rate of 37.5% ad valorem" in the Notification 14/78-C.E. the concession was intended to be given from the very beginning that is, from 24-1-1978. This cannot be done except by giving the notification retrospective effect, an action that would, in different circumstances, bring out vehement protests from the assessee. We need not say anything more than that no notification can h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
