9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (4) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Under item No. 26 steel ingots are subject to duty at the rate of Rs. 39.35 per metric tonne. The petitioner's claim, which is subject-matter of all the 13 applications for various months from March, 1964, to March 1965, was that the petitioner was liable to pay duty at the rate of Rs. 30 per metric tonne in respect of the quantity of scrap iron used as aforesaid and at the rate of Rs. 39.35 in respect of pig iron for which no duty was paid before. The claim of the petitioner, however, in all the cases was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jamshedpur ; and on appeal, by the Collector, Central Excise, Patna, as also by the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The details of the claim may be stated as follows : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.W.J.C Period Claim Quantity Amount Date of Date of Date of No. order of order of order of Assistant Collector, Sri D.P. Collector Centeral Anand, Central Excise, Addl.Excise, Patna with Secretary, Jamshedpur. Case No. Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi. ------------ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (late Department of Revenue) No 30/60 Central Excises, dated the 1st March, 1960, the Central Government hereby exempts steel ingots [falling under item No. 26 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)] in which duty-paid iron in any crude form including pig iron, scrap iron, molten iron or iron cast in any other shape or size, is used, from so much of the duty as has been paid on the said iron in any crude form. " Mr. Prasad's contention is that the subsequent notification contains the real meaning of the notification even on 1st March, 1960, referred to above, and this subsequent notification has been issued substantially to explain the meaning of the notification of 1st March, 1960, with some difference in the sense that, instead of laying down a general rate of Rs. 30 per metric tonne, it has now to be calculated in proportion to the amount of duty paid upon the quantity of iron which is used for the manufacture of steel ingots. Learned counsel for the department, however, has urged that the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sly the department intended to grant some relief to the manufacture of steel ingots in respect of materials which were already used. As such it could will be classed as duty-paid material, being duty-paid also in this case, otherwise there was no reason to make any kind of differentiation between two classes of steel ingots, one manufactured out of non-duty paid pig iron, and the other duty-paid pig iron. If the construction adopted by the department and urged by the learned counsel for the department were to be accepted, then Notification No. 30/60 would be rendered obviously nugatory. It is because learned counsel has pointed out, and as has also been referred to in the order of the Additional Secretary himself, that serviceable casting moulds (ingot moulds and bottom stools) after being scrapped can be used for the manufacture of steel ingots only in conjuction with other non-duty-paid pig iron. If that be so and if the intention of the department were that the benefit under the notification of 1960 should be available only in respect of steel ingots manufactured exclusively out of non-duty paid pig iron, then this would obviously mean that no relief can be granted to any manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ron, there was nothing to stop the department from putting this in appropriate words in the notification itself. The same not having been done, to accept the construction put forward on behalf of the department would be patently unjust and would work unwarranted hardship to the subject which cannot have the approbation of this court. We have already referred to the nature of this notification. Although the words used in the subsequent notification are " in supersession " of the previous notification, it is clear that this is substantially in the nature of an explanatory notification so as to avoid the ambiguity which was discovered in interpreting the notification of 1960. The meaning of the notification of 1960 can well be gathered with reference to the subsequent notification which is permissible in regard to determining the character of a subsequent Act or rule or regulation or notification and a law court has to decide whether it is an explanatory measure or it is intended to introduce some thing new of a remedial nature. In the present case, it is difficult to hold that the desire was to remedy an evil, but the intention was to explain except in regard to the rate of duty. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
