Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1978 (4) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This was acceded to by the Government of India by issuing a Notification No. 59/1965-Central Excise, dated 1-4-1965, exempting waste staple fibre yarn known as hard waste, falling under Tariff Item No. 18, from the whole of the duty leviable thereon with effect from 1-4-1965. This exemption notification was issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. By Section 64(c) of the Finance Act, 1972, the Central Excise Item No. 18 was amended and a new Tariff Item No. 18E was introduced. Varieties of mixed yarn were carved out from old Item No. 18 and included in item No. 18E which reads as follows - "Yarn, all sorts not elsewhere specified......and containing any two or more o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1.4 156.0 677.4 4. The audit party of the Madurai Central Excise Collectorate, appears to have raised some objection that the petitioner ought not to have been allowed to clear the above quantity of hard waste without payment of duty. Based on the said audit objection, the first respondent called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,161/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 15 per kg. of the hard waste, cleared on those three dates. The petitioner resisted the demand and represented that the hard waste continued to be exempted under Notification No. 59 of 1965, dated 1-4-1965. But the first respondent confirmed on 25-4-1973 the demand of duty of Rs. 10,161/- on 677.4 kgs. of hard waste cleared curing the period referred to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts have completely overlooked the provision in Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and that in the case of repeal and reenactment of a statute, all notifications issued under the re-enpealed statute should be taken to have been issued under the corresponding provisions of the statute as renacted until it is superseded by a fresh notification issued under the new enactment. I am inclined to accept the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is no doubt true that in this case the hard waste was chargeable to duty under Item 18 before the Finance Act of 1972 came into force. Subsequently, hard waste became liable to duty under Item 18E, after the Finance Act. The hard waste was exempted from duty by issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. Admittedly the exemption notification of the year 1965 has not been superseded. Though the hard waste was assessable under Item 18 previous to the Finance Act of 1972, and was assessable under Item 18E after the said Act, the exemption notification issued in the year 1965 will continue to have the same effect as it has been issued in respect of the duty payable on hard waste, originally under item 18 but subsequently under Item 18E. 8. The scope of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act came up for consideration in K.S.V.N. and Sons v. State of Madras, A.I.R 1959 Mad. 334. In that case, Chief Justice Rajamannar held that a notification conferring jurisdiction on the District Courts under Section 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4 of the General Clauses Act is operative, the Mines Regulations of 1926 were in force at the relevant date in 1955, and shall be deemed to have been made under Section 57 of the 1952 Act, as there is no provision express or otherwise, in the later Act to the contrary and the regulations are not inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions." 9. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1543, wherein the Mines Creche Rules of 1946 framed under the Mines Act of 1923, were deemed to be rules framed under Section 58(d) of the 1952 Act. In Neel v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2066, a notification of 1923 issued under Section 15 of the Arms Act of 1878 was held to be in forc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates