9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amendment to Rule 8 of PMPM Rules, shows that it was not the intention of the Government that in a case where in a month a particular machine is used to produce Gutkha pouches of more than one RSP, each RSP is to be treated as separate machine for the purpose of charging duty, but the intention was to charge duty inasmuch as situation at the rate applicable to the highest RSP. For this reason also, there is no reason for interpreting the first proviso to Rule 8 during the period prior to 13.04.2010 in a manner which would result in levy of duty on the quantity which is more than the deemed production per machine per month as specified in rule 5 as the retrospective amendment to Rule 8 of the PMPM Rules w.e.f. 13.04.2010 shows that the intention of the Government was to levy duty at the rate applicable to highest RSP on a machine during a particular month when during that month, on that machine, pouches of different RSPs had been produced. Moreover, it is well settled principle of the interpretation of the statute that different provisions of a statute must be construed harmoniously and, therefore, in this case, 1st proviso to Rule 8 of the PMPM Rules cannot be interprested so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be taken as the maximum number of packing machines installed on any day during the month; and (b) In a case where manufacturer commences manufacturing of the goods of a new RSP during month on an existing machine, it shall be deemed to be an addition in the number of operating packing machine for the month. 1.3 In the present case during each of the five months to which this dispute pertain, there was no addition of new machines by installation of new machines or reduction in the number of packing machines by un-installation of packing machines. The Department however, invoking first proviso to Rule 8 of the PMPM Rules has taken stand that since during each of these months, the appellant have used the machines installed for the manufacture of the pouches of MRP of 50 Paisa also in addition to the pouches of MRP of Rs. One, it would be treated as addition of new machine and hence for the months of June 2009, July 2009, August 2009, October 2009 and November 2009, the appellant would be required to pay duty on 49 machines, 47 machines 47 machines, 61 machines and 57 machines respectively at the rate applicable for the MRP of 50 Paisa per pouch, in addition to the duty alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them in their declarations for these months. In this situation, Sixth Proviso to Rule 9 of PMPM Rules would apply and accordingly, the appellant company would have to pay duty at the rate applicable to the goods of the higher RSP so manufactured by them in respect of all the packing machines operative for the period during which the manufacture took place. Since the appellant had already paid duty on the higher RSP of ₹ 1 in respect of all machines, they are not liable to pay any further duty. (3) First proviso to Rule 8 of the PMPM Rules becomes applicable when during a particular month, on the same machine the Gutkha of a new retail sale price is manufactured. The expression new retail sale price used in first proviso to Rule 8 must be understood in the same sense in which it is understood in the context of Rule 5. Rule 5 specifies the deemed production of Gutkha pouches per operating machine per month according to the various retail sale price (RSP) slabs - upto ₹ 1, from ₹ 1.01 to ₹ 1.50, from ₹ 1.51 to ₹ 2 and above ₹ 6. When for the purpose of determining deemed production per operating machine per month, all the RSPs of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions from both the sides and perused the records. The appellant during the month of June 2009 July 2009 August, 2009 October, 2009 and November, 2009 had as per the declarations filed by them in respect of these months under Rule 6 of the PMPM Rules had operated 49 machines, 47 machines, 47 machines 61 machines and 51 machines respectively and on each of these machines they were to manufacture the Gutkha pouches of RSP of ₹ 1. ER-I Returns for these months they also showed manufacture and clearances of the Gutkha of RSP of ₹ 0.50 pc. On this basis department has inferred that during each of these months, the appellant have used each of the installed machines for manufacture of the Gutkha of RSP of ₹ 1 as well as RSP of ₹ 0.50 and it is on this basis that the first proviso to Rule 8 of the PMPM Rules have been invoked, according to which, when a manufacturer commences manufacturing of the goods of a new retail sale price (RSP) during a month on an existing machine, it shall be deemed to be an addition in the number of operating packing machine for the month. The basic point of dispute in this case is as to what is the new retail sale price. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d production of pouches per operating machines per month for different retail sale prices. The deemed production per operating machines per month specified in Rule 5 is in respect of different RSP slabs upto ₹ 1, from ₹ 1.01 to ₹ 1.50, from ₹ 1.51 to ₹ 2, from ₹ 2.01 to ₹ 3, from ₹ 3.01 to ₹ 4, from ₹ 4.01 to ₹ 5, from ₹ 5.01 to ₹ 6 and above ₹ 6. Rule 5 also provides that if the machines are multiple track or multiple line packing machines, each track or line shall be treated as one machine unless the packing machines besides packing the notified goods in pouches also perform additional process involving moulding and giving a definite shape to such pouches with a view to distinguish the brand or to prevent the counterfeiting of the goods. Thus, when the single line/single track packing machines manufactures Gutkha pouches of RSP upto ₹ 1, its deemed production would be 37,44,000/- and similarly, if a machine manufactures Gutkha pouches of RSP from Rs.1.51 to ₹ 2 its deemed production would be 35,56,800/-. Thus, if a single track machine in a month had manufactured Gutk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures in a month the Gutkha pouches of the 25 Paisa, 50 Paisa, 75 Paisa and ₹ 1, its deemed production would be ₹ 37,47,000/- and not ₹ 37,44,000/- multiplied by 4. Thus, for the purpose of Rule 5 all the RSPs within a particular RSP slab are the same for the purpose of determining deemed production per month, and it is only an RSP which is different from a particular RSP slab which has to be treated as a new RSP as it would result in change of the deemed production. In our view, the term new retail sale price used to First Proviso to Rule 8 has to be understood in the same sense in which it is understood in rule5 and, therefore, the RSP of 0.50 piece cannot be treated as a new RSP, as it belongs to the same slab to which the RSP of ₹ 1 belongs. The First Proviso to Rule 8 cannot be given an interpretation which results in levy of duty on the quantity which is more than the quantity of Gutkha/Pan masala pouches deemed to have been manufactured per machine per month as specified in Rue 5. 9. It is also seen that in terms of Sixth Proviso to Rule 9 of the PMPM Rules, in case it is found that a manufacturer has manufactured goods of the RSPs which have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the intention was to charge duty inasmuch as situation at the rate applicable to the highest RSP. For this reason also, there is no reason for interpreting the first proviso to Rule 8 during the period prior to 13.04.2010 in a manner which would result in levy of duty on the quantity which is more than the deemed production per machine per month as specified in rule 5 as the retrospective amendment to Rule 8 of the PMPM Rules w.e.f. 13.04.2010 shows that the intention of the Government was to levy duty at the rate applicable to highest RSP on a machine during a particular month when during that month, on that machine, pouches of different RSPs had been produced. Moreover, it is well settled principle of the interpretation of the statute that different provisions of a statute must be construed harmoniously and, therefore, in this case, 1st proviso to Rule 8 of the PMPM Rules cannot be interprested so as to result in levy of duty on the quantity which is more than the deemed production per machine per month as specified in Rule 5. When for the purpose of rule 5, in case of a packing machine manufacturing Gutkha pouches of RSP of ₹ 1, the RSP of ₹ 0.50 piece is not a n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
