9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the impugned judgment of CEGAT, in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, has been made out. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed - 4990 (NM) of 1991 - - - Dated:- 15-4-1994 - B.P. Jeevan Reddy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ. [Judgment per : Hansaria, J.]. - The only point for determination in this appeal against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) is whether the appellant is entitled to the exemption from such portion of excise duty as has been spelt out in Notification No. 108/81-Central Excises, dated 24-4-1981 read with Notification No. 83/84-Central Excises, dated 2-4-1984 and 214/84-Central Excises, dated 9-11-1984. (Though there is yet another Notification bearing N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e years from the date of first clearance of the said goods from such factory." 4. On the matter being taken up with the Government, an amendment was issued on 2-4-1984 to the notification of 24-4-1981 by substituting the words 'paper and paper board' for the words 'printing and writing paper' in the first notification. This apart, the rate of exemption was enhanced to 80%. By the 2nd June, 1984 notification referred in parenthesis earlier, the rate was brought down to 50%. Finally came the notification of 9th November, 1984 which substituted the second proviso in the first notification as below :- "Provided further that the exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to clearances of the said goods effected after the expiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the notification of April 1981. Even if these words were to relate to the notification of November 1984 that cannot help the appellant in claiming exemption as notification of November 1984 had not granted any exemption. 7. Faced with the aforesaid position as emerging from the literal interpretation of the notification at hand, Shri Salve, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has strenuously contended that the entire object behind the exemption and more particularly one sought to be achieved by the last notification would be only partially achieved if benefit were not to be given to the appellant's clearance of paper board from 1979. According to the learned counsel the notification of November, 1984 was required to be issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification in so far as paper board is concerned; and so, the words "this notification" in November 1984 notification would take within its fold notification of April, 1984 also. Shri Salve would say that if his contentions were not to be accepted the object behind granting of exemption, if not frustrated totally, would be made lame. 9. To persuade us to agree with him Shri Salve urges and strenuously that in a case of present nature object must be kept in view; and to support him, we are referred to a number of decisions of this Court to wit, K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, 1982 1 SCR 629; Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, 1985 2 SCR 287; Collector of Central Excise v. Parley Exports (P) Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC) = 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, this Court, while concerned with a beneficial provision of statute opined that the same should not be interpreted so as to unduly restrict the beneficial scope of the policy. By disagreeing with Shri Salve, we would not be doing anything of such nature inasmuch as to why exemption to paper board was given by the notification of April, 1984 and not by April, 1981 notification is really a question of policy, the scope and width of which is for the Government to decide and not for this Court. Indeed, by agreeing with Shri Salve we would be extending the benefit to the appellant though the policy of the Government as incorporated in April, 1984 notification did not visualise the same. So, the view taken by us is not one about which it could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for. 13. The decision in Shri Sitaram Sugar Company's case was concerned with the question of price fixation and it was stated in paragraph 58, which alone is pressed into service by Shri Salve, that the judicial function in respect of such matter is exhausted when there is found to be rational basis for the conclusions reached by the concerned authority. Though Shri Salve has contended that there is no rational basis for granting exemption from excise duty for full five years to those industries manufacturing paper board which had started clearance from 2nd April, 1984. Indeed, this would be discriminatory as highlighted in the aforesaid written submission as units which commenced production from 1-4-1979 to 1-4-1984 would not get exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
