9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re enjoying facility of payment of excise duty payable by them on their products on fortnightly basis under Rule 8(1) of the Excise Rules of 2001, which respondent No. 2 has forfeited by his impugned order dated 28th August, 2002 passed in exercise of powers under Rule 8(4)(ii) of the said Rules, alleging breach thereof by the petitioners. Statutory Provisions : Before proceeding further it may be proper to notice relevant rule, to appreciate the issues involved. Relevant Rule 8 of the said Rules reads as under : Rule 8. Manner of Payment : (1) The duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during the first fortnight of the month shall be paid by the 20th of that month and the duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during the second fortnight of the month shall be paid by the 5th of the following month : Provided that in the case of goods removed during the second fortnight of the month of March, the duty shall be paid by the 31st day of March : Provided further that where an assessee is availing of the exemption under a notification based on the value of clearance in a financial year, the duty on goods cleared during a calen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 2 on the date when impugned order was passed holding that 3 defaults were committed by the petitioners. Undisputed Data : 6. In order to appreciate the above questions, it is necessary to reproduce undisputed data on the basis of which action is sought to be challenged by the petitioners and the same is sought to be sustained by the Revenue. Sr. No. Period Involved Due date Amount Due Date of actual payment Amount paid No. of default 1. 16-10-2001 to 30-10-2001 5-11-2001 15900000 4-12-2001 vide TR6 ch. No. 17 15900000 + 303189 Interest I 2. 1-1-2002 to 15-1-2002 20-1-2002 9000000 21-1-2002 vide TR6 ch No. 23 Interest not paid II 3. 1-3-2002 to 15-3-2002 20-3-2002 13300000 19-4-2002 vide TR6 ch No.1, 2 dated 18-4-2002 ch. No. 3, 4, 5, 6, dated 19-4-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, payment thereof could only be made by them on the next working day i.e. on Monday, the 21st January, 2002, as such it cannot be said that there was a default in payment of excise duty on due date. In other words, there was no default in payment of duty as per Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2001. At any rate, such payment did not constitute default in payment of excise duty on due date within the meaning of Rule 8(4)(ii) of the Rules, consequently, facility to pay duty on fortnightly instalments could not be forfeited under the said Rules of 2001. The petitioners had pressed into service Section 10 of the General Clauses Act in support of their submission and prayed for grant of personal hearing before any decision is taken in the matter. 10. The 2nd respondent by notice dated 31st July 2002, called upon the petitioners to appear before it on 19th August, 2002 to make their oral submissions. On that day petitioners prayed for an adjournment on the ground that the representative who was conversant with facts of the case was going out of town. The request was thus made to hear the matter after 26th August 2002. However, the said request was turned down and impugned order dated 28th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at is requisite is that there should be a period prescribed, and that period should expire on a holiday. In that judgment Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was pressed into service while interpreting Rule 119 of the Rules framed under Representation of People Act, 1951. The Apex Court in the case of D.K. Trivedi and Sons v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1986 SC 1323 also ruled that the rules framed under Section 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regularisation and Development) Act, 1957, though made by the State Governments, were rules made under a Central Act as such the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 were very much applicable to such rules. On the basis of this judgment, Shri Hidayatulla reiterated that respondent No. 2 could not have ignored sweep of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act while interpreting Rule 8(4)(ii) of the Excise Rules of 2001. He, therefore, contended that the alleged second default cannot be said to be a default within the meaning of Section 8(4)(ii) of the said Rules in the light of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 13. Shri Hidayatulla brought to our notice judgment of this Court in the case of Vidush Wires P. Ltd. v. Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the light of the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 whose object is to state explicitly certain convenient rules for the construction and interpretation of Central Acts, and to guard against slips and oversights by importing into every Act certain common form clauses, which otherwise ought to be inserted expressly in every Central Act. Central Acts also include Regulations and Ordinances and statutory instruments made under Central Acts, Regulations and Ordinances. If one turns to the provisions of General Clauses Act and the interpretation assigned to legal phrases it is clear that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is not only applicable to Central Acts and Regulations but unless the context otherwise requires the same rule of construction is required to be applied to the statutory rules as held in the case of Bhupendra Kumar Jain v. Y.S. Dharmadhikari, AIR 1976 MP 110 . The two judgments of the Apex Court one in the case of Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh and Another in D.K. Trivedi and Sons v. State of Gujarat (cited supra) in no uncertain ruled that the provisions of the General Clauses Act are very much applicable to the statutory rules. 16. If one turns to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
