9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR) for the appellant Shri V Sridharan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for the respondent Per: C J Mathew: The issue in dispute is the scope for collecting duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 on excisable goods that are exempted for the time being either in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or by an exemption notification issued under section 5(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellant is a composite mill manufacturing excisable goods falling under various chapters. of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and exemption is claimed under notification 67/95-CE dated 16 th March 1995 on woollen yarn, polyester yarn, wool tows and polyester tows that are captively consumed for manufacture of fabric. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellant for recovery of Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 to the extent of ₹ 69,46,926/- for January - February 2003 and to the extent of ₹ 1,87,34,372/- for March - September 2003 The order-in-original no. 30/KKS/2003-2004 dated 31 st March 2004 of Commissioner of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise duty portion for the discharge of Additional Duty of Excise could have been notionally calculated as has been held by the Hon ble High Court in the case of Indo Farm Tractors Motors Ltd. (supra). in support of the contention that even where the effective rate of duty is nil a notional calculation of the standard duty is possible for the purpose of computation of the additional duty payable. As the impugned order followed the earlier order in the respondent s own case, which was under challenge before the Tribunal, it is the contention of Revenue that it was improper on the part of adjudicating authority to have done so. It is observed from the case cited by the Learned Authorised Representative that this very order has since been upheld by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Raymond Ltd [2005 (192) ELT 868 (Tri.-Mumbai)] . The said decision has referred to all the three judgments/decisions cited in the present order under challenge before coming to the conclusion that additional duty is not leviable when goods are exempt from basic excise duty. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent draws our attention to the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een issued. In other words, the exemption from excise duty or additional excise duty is restricted to such duties leviable under any of the three acts specified in the notification under which the said notification has been issued and not to any other duty leviable under any other statute. 12. It is settled law that the exemption notification has to be strictly interpreted. The power to exempt a product from payment of duty vests in the Government. Once the Government specifies the statute and further clarifies that the exemption is in relation to the duty leviable under those statutes, under the guise of interpretation of such notification, the scope of exemption cannot be expanded so as to include some other duties leviable under some other statute, may be of the same nature as otherwise exempted under the notification. In this regard, he relies on catena of decision by the Hon ble Supreme Court. It is difficult to accept the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants that NCCD which is a duty leviable under the Finance Act, 2001 would stand exempted in the clause in the said notification. It is not permissible for this Tribunal to read with the said notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act, 1944, additional duty is not leviable. This is in consonance with the decision adopted by the Tribunal in re Rivaa Exports Ltd. From a cumulative reading of section 3 of Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 it would not be possible to alienate chargeability under this Act from assessment under Central Excise Act, 1944 and when the effective rate of duty is nil there is no assessment at all. 11. We are also bound to take note of anomalies that may arise or give rise to absurdities by the interpretation of any operative provision of taxing law. The interpretation urged by Revenue would draw a distinction between goods which are charged to nil rate of standard rate and those that are subject to nil rate by application of an exemption notification with the latter subject to tax which is anomalous. Moreover, it would also accord the benefit of a proportionately lower additional duty on goods which are subject to some concessional rate of duty in contradistinction with those that are subject to nil rate of duty being burdened with additional duty in full which is an absurdity. We do not consider that it was the intent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
