9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 944 (for short "the Act" ), if they were produced from materials on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid. As the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) by different orders upheld such claims made by certain manufacturers the Revenue has filed these appeals through the Collectors of Central Excise concerned. 2.Avoiding proliferation with facts in different appeals we think it is enough to reproduce the facts in Civil Appeal No. 2319 of 1989 filed by the Collector of Excise, Patna against the respondent M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. 3.Respondent in that case manufactures wire-rods [which fall under Tariff Item 26AA (1a) of the Central Excise Tariff]. For manufacturing such wire-rods the raw materials used were steel products including billets. Such steel products were procured from stockyards of manufacturers like TISCO etc. The Superintendent of Central Excise concerned, while making assessment of the duty payable by the respondent, demanded that excise duty should have been paid on wire-rods since the billets used for its manufacture were totally exempted from duty. The Assistant Collector of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the above notification if any amount of duty has been paid on the raw material, the output product would escape from excise duty. The doubt arose was regarding the expression in the notification i.e. " on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid" as to whether it is capable of two interpretations, one as claimed by the assessee and the other as putforth by the Revenue". 7.Much reliance was placed by the Revenue on the judgment of this Court in Ahura Chemical Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1981 (8) E.L.T. 613]. The Tribunal found that the said decision was not relevant for the reason that the question before the Supreme Court was whether the goods were purchased from open market or from the manufacturer. A two judge Bench of this Court has considered the exemption clause in a similar notification involved in that case as per which certain "preparations intended for use in industrial process" were exempted from duty "if in respect of surface active agents used in the manufacture of such preparations the appropriate amount of the duty of excise or the additional duty has already been paid or where such surface active agents are purchased from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a particular collocation of words need not be the exact meaning when used in other permutations. Lord Green has observed in Bidie v. General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. [1948 (2) All.E.R. 995] : "Few words in the English language have a natural or ordinary meaning in the sense that they must be so read that their meaning is entirely independent of their context. The method of construing statutes that I prefer is not to take particular words and attribute to them a sort of prima facie meaning which you may have to displace or modify. It is to read the statute as a whole and ask one-self the question in this state, in this context, relating to this subject-matter, what is the true meaning of that word." 11.In Bourne v. Norwich Crematorium Ltd. [1967 (2) AER 576] Stamp J. has reminded that "English words derive colour from those which surround them and sentences are not mere collections of words to be taken out of the sentence, defined separately by reference of the dictionary or decided cases." 12.If we take the words "already paid" in the notification delinked from other words employed therein, they would, perhaps, lend support to the contention of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n involved in the appeal was issued in 1963 and submitted that it was when the manufacturers claimed exemption even in respect of goods whose raw materials were totally exempted from duty that the Central Government found it necessary to make appropriate clarification in the later notification. Hence he contended that no leverage can be given to the respondent on the strength of the proviso employed in the 1983 notification. 16.Having bestowed our consideration on the rival contentions we are persuaded to accept the argument of the learned counsel for respondent for the main reason that the Central Government could have inserted the same proviso in the notification now under consideration, by way of modification or amendment if the Government wanted that meaning to be adopted to it. We find considerable force in the contention that absence of any such proviso in the notification (under our consideration) is consistent with the construction sought to be placed on it by the respondents. 17.How the Revenue has understood the notification or made others to understand this position can be seen from the instructions or circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Board earlier. Such instructions were not issued earlier for fancy or as rituals. Even the pre-amendment circulars were issued for the same purpose of achieving uniformity in imposing excise duty on excisable goods. So the circular, whether issued before December, 1985 or thereafter should have the same binding effect on the department. 21.Through a catena of decisions this Court has pronounced that Revenue cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the instructions issued by the Board. It is a different matter that an assessee can contest the validity or legality of a departmental instruction. But that right cannot be conceded to the department, more so when others have acted according to such instructions, vide Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Jayant Dalal Private Ltd. [1996 (88) E.L.T. 638], Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (87) E.L.T. 19], Poulose and Mathen v. Collector of Central Excise [1997 (90) E.L.T. 264], British Machinery Supplies Co. v. Union of India [1996 (86) E.L.T. 449]. Of course the appellate authority is also not bound by the interpretation given by the Board but the assessing officer cannot take a view contrary to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
