9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the entire container. It would be entitled to exemption only to that extent for which excise duty has been paid i.e. on paperboard. As the question as to whether three layers of base paper have been used for manufacture of the container or not has not been raised before any authority, the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs for determination of the said question. Appeal allowed to the aforementioned extent. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed by an order dated 1-2-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). An appeal from the said order before the Tribunal was dismissed by an order dated 5-3-2003. 8.Mr. Ramesh Singh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, would submit that the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that for manufacture of cardboard containers, apart from one layer of LDPE coated paper, three layers of base paper are used in respect whereof, no Modvat credit was taken and, thus, the Appellant was entitled to obtain the benefit of the exemption notification. The inference of the Tribunal that the Appellant had indirectly taken the Modvat credit, it was submitted, is not sustainable in law. Only because Modvat credit has been taken for one of the inputs, it was submitted, cannot be held to be a ground for depriving the Appellant from the benefit of an exemption notification to which it was otherwise entitled to. 9.Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned Additional Solicitor General, on the other hand, would submit that the plastic coated paper is different from a base paper and on a true construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the notification has to be interpreted in terms of its language, once an assessee satisfies the eligibility clause, the exemption clause therein may be construed literally. An eligibility criteria, therefore, deserves a strict construction, although construction of a condition thereof may be given a liberal meaning. [See Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Others - (2005 (4) SCC 272.]. 13.In Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.)], it was held : "The basic rule in interpretation of any statutory provision is that the plain words of the statute must be given effect to……" 14.In Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [(2004) 11 SCC 801], it was held : "It is settled law that exemption notifications have to be strictly construed. They must be interpreted on their own wording. Wordings of some other notification are of no benefit in construing a particular notification…" 15.The said decision was followed in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mahaan Dairies [(2004) 11 SCC 798]. 16.Keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions, we have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders (supra) is an authority for the same proposition as also that the wordings of some other notification are of no benefit in construing a particular notification. The notification does not state that exemption cannot be granted in a case where all the inputs for manufacture of containers would be base paper or paperboard. In manufacture of the containers some other inputs are likely to be used for which Modvat credit facility has been availed of. Such a construction, as has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, would amount of addition of the words "only out of" or "purely out of" the base paper cannot be countenanced. The notification has to be construed in terms of the language used therein. It is well-settled that unless literal meaning given to a document leads to anomaly or absurdity, the golden rule of literal interpretation shall be adhered to. 22.In Coromondal Fertilizers Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras [(1986) 3 SCC 531], the notification in question was as under : "GSR 547 (E). In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manure within the meaning of the Notification No. 178/76-Cus." 24.The only requirement for availing the benefit of the said notification was payment of excise duty on base paper or base paperboard, wherefor also a legal fiction has been raised in the explanation appended thereto. 25.The Tribunal denied the benefit of the said notification to the Appellant herein without considering the import thereof that it refers to the Modvat credit directly that too only on base paper. Similarly, the finding of the Tribunal that the container must be manufactured only from base paper may render the exemption notification inapplicable in a large number of cases. 26.The Appellant, however, is not correct in contending that it would be entitled to the exemption notification in respect of the entire container. It would be entitled to exemption only to that extent for which excise duty has been paid i.e. on paperboard. As the question as to whether three layers of base paper have been used for manufacture of the container or not has not been raised before any authority, the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs for determination of the said question. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
