Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 361 - CESTAT, BANGALOREBenefit of Exemption Notification No. 13/97-Cus. - Procedure - Interpretation of statute - Methods - manufacture of Deflection Yokes on concessional rate of duty - duty demand - Interest - penalty u/s 114A - HELD THAT:- There are broadly two ways of interpreting law. The first approach would be to go by the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words. In this approach, one sticks to the letter of the law. According to this approach, even if the interpretation gives rise to unjust results, which Parliament never intended, the literal meaning must prevail. In this case, if we go by a very literal interpretation, the Revenue is correct. If law and the rules framed are interpreted with mathematical rigour, then a computer can be programmed to administer law. There will not be any need for human beings. The law is for the society and society is not for the law. After all, procedures are handmaidens of law and not the other way. Another way of interpreting law is, looking into its spirit. In our view, we have to go into the spirit of the relevant Notification and the Rules and come to a decision. It is true that the respondent imported the goods for use in their factory at Bangalore. This is not in doubt. Business environment has its own dynamics. In the present case, due to reasons beyond the control of the respondents, the imported goods could not be used in the factory at Bangalore. There is nothing wrong in the respondents' being prudent businessmen in taking a decision to use these goods for the intended purpose in their factory at Gurgaon. It is only with this intention, they approached the jurisdictional DC who in turn directed them to seek AC's permission. This is very clear from the letter addressed to the Additional Commissioner. Thus, to say that the respondent intentionally diverted the goods with an intent to evade duty is not at all justified. It is also seen that neither the Notification nor the Rules prohibit the use of the goods in another factory belonging to the respondent. The Commissioner (A), after perusing the documents produced, was satisfied that the goods have been used for the intended purpose. It is also not the case of the department that the goods have been used for some other purpose, not mentioned in the notification. In our view, the Commissioner (A)'s order has no infirmity and Revenue's appeal is devoid of merit. In view of what is stated above we uphold the OIA and reject the Revenue's appeal.
|