9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though there is yet another Notification bearing No. 139/84, dated 2-6-1984 that however is not material for our purpose). 2. All the aforesaid notifications owe their origin to the Central Government's decision to attract investment in industries manufacturing paper, the bulk of which relating to writing and printing was being imported at the relevant time. On this subject Minister of State for Industries made a speech on the floor of the House on 24th April, 1981 regarding incentives, inter alia, to paper industry and stated about the excise duty concession to the extent of 50% to those industries which had commenced clearance for the first time during the period from 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1984. 3. This policy statement saw the first of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the said goods effected after the expiry of a period of five years from the date of first clearance of the said goods from such factory or the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, whichever is later." (Emphasis supplied) 5. Despite exemption of excise duty having been given to the paper board also by the notification of 2-4-1984, the appellant could not get full benefit of the same because it had started manufacturing paper board in 1979 and the Department is said to have given benefit from 24-4-1981 (which date is irrelevant according to the appellant as stated in the written submissions filed on 5th April), and so benefit from 1979 till 1-4-1981 got denied. The contention of the appellant however is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November, 1984 was required to be issued to take care of an anomaly which would have arisen in case clearance had started from say from August, 1979 in which event the five year period would have come to end of August, 1984, because of which the concession would have really been available for 40 months, that is, from April 1981 to August, 1984, as the first notification was issued in April, 1981, as a result of which the concession could not have been available for five years to the clearance of the aforesaid type, whereas in those cases where clearance was from April 1981, full five year exemption would have been available. It is correct that the notification of November 1984 takes care of this anomaly by making the terminus a quo relatab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P) Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC) = 1988 (Supp) 3 SCR 933; Union of India v. Suksha International and Nutan Gems, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (SC) = 1989 1 SCR 1; Tata Oil Mils v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 183 (SC) = 1989 3 SCR 839; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co: Ltd. v. Union of India, J.T. 1990 1 SC 462; and Union of India v. Wood Paper Ltd: 1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (SC) = 1990 2 SCR 659; and Collector of Central Excise v. Newoli Sugar Factory, 1993 (65) E.L.T. 145 (SC) = 1993 (Supp) 3 SCC 69. A perusal of these decisions shows that a court should apply its mind to the object and purpose if literal interpretation were inter alia to give rise to manifest absurdity, which would have been the result in Varghese and Neoli Sugar Factory ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by us is not one about which it could reasonably be said that we are interpreting the April, 1984 notification with undue restriction. Indeed, our endorsement of Shri Salve's contention would amount to enlarging the scope of exemption which we cannot. 11. The decision in Tata Oil Mills' case too has no cutting edge, because there the question for consideration was whether rice brand oil converted into hydrogenated oil used in manufacturing of soap was entitled to rebate. This Court was called upon there to decide whether rice bran fatty acid is different from rice brand oil, as what had been exempted was such "soap as is made from indigenous rice bran oil." This Court took the view that the Tribunal proceeded on too narrow an interpretat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1979 to 1-4-1984 would not get exemption for full five years. If it is borne in mind that the concerned notification was issued on representation of the Paper Industry that confining of the exemption to printing and writing paper alone was not achieving the object, the rationality of the notification becomes apparent and acceptable. It may be mentioned that in so far as utility of the product is concerned, paper board does stand on a footing different from printing and writing paper. There was therefore no irrationality in exemption of printing and writing paper from April, 1981 while giving the benefit of the same to the paper board for the first time from April, 1984. We do not also read any discriminatory treatment in denying full benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
