9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 20-5-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Ms. Krati Somani, Advocate for the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain, AR for the respondent ORDER The appellants M/s Arora Knit Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. were issued a demand show cause notice for wrongly availed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 14/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002. The said notification, in terms of S. No. 6 of table read with proviso (a) of the notification provided for concessional rate of duty subject to the condition that the goods were made from Textile Fabrics on which appropriate duty of excise [(BED and AED (GSI)] has been paid. It was alleged that the textile fabrics i.e. raw material/inputs out of which the said goods were manufactured were exempted from payment of duty of excise [(BED and AED (GSI)] in terms of S.No.14 of the Table of the Notification No. 14/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002. Reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries-2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC) wherein it has been held that the exempted goods attracting nil rate of duty cannot be treated as goods on which payment of duty at the appropriate rate has been mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty. In view of the above, it can not be said as held inter alia by CESTAT in the case of Auro Textiles (supra) that a simple and plain reading of the exemption Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. is available. In the existing set of facts and circumstances a harmonious construction/interpretation is required to be made to understand the intention of the framers of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. If a view is taken that all the goods lying in the market are non duty paid by virtue of Sr. No. 10 of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. then Explanation-II to this notification becomes redundant. Secondly, by presuming that all categories of grey fabrics supplied to the appellants have not discharged any duty that interpretation will be like creating another fiction that all grey fabrics lying in the market are deemed not duty paid , unless established by an assessee availing exemption under Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. For a claim under Sr. No. 12 of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., by an assessee, it can not be presumed that all grey cotton fabrics received by a textile processor is not duty paid because Sr. No. 10 of the same notification exists. It is also relevant to note that exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Credit Rules. 8.5 It is evident from the above Explanatory Notes that framers of Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., wanted to extend the benefit of this exemption to the manufacturers subject to the only condition that no Cenvat credit is taken/not taking of such Cenvat credit was not only restricted to inputs but was also to capital goods. It is further clarified that benefit of rate of duty should be allowed without insisting upon any documentary proof of payment of duty. In view of the above legislative intent, we do not agree with the views expressed by CESTAT two Member judgment in the case of Auro Textile v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) in Para 25 that reliance of the appellant on Explanatory Notes to Budget of 2002 can not be of any assistance to the assessee. It has been rightly argued by the Senior Advocate in the present proceedings that if the views of the Revenue are accepted than it will lead to chaos and absurdity because making a manufacturer to pay duty again after breaking Cenvat chain by not taking credit, will burden small processing manufacturers to pay duty again on the processed fabrics when no credit on inputs is taken. Indirectly all the textile processors wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, 1953 SCR 1 had held that it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute. In Quebec Railway Light Heat and Power Company v. Vandray, AIR 1920 PC 181, It has been observed that the Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. Similarly, it is not permissible to add words to a statute which are not there unless on a literal construction being given a part of the statute becomes meaningless. But before any words are read to repair an omission in the Act, it would be possible to state with certainity that these words would have been inserted by the draftsman and approved by the legislature had their attention been drawn to the omission before the Bill had passed into a law. At times, the intention of the legislature is found to be clear but the unskillfulness of the draftsman in introducing certain words in the statute resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
