Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2010 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 544 - SIKKIM HIGH COURTRefund - Notification No. 71/2003-Centrtal Excise dated 9-9-2003, namely, General Exemption No. 51B and Office Memorandum dated 1-4-2007 in File No. 10(3)/2007-DBA-II/NER, both issued by the Government of India exercising the powers conferred under section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - In order to apply the principle of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose or intention of the provision, as apparent from the scheme of the Act, the Court must ensure to harmonize different provisions in the same Act and prefer an interpretation which would lead to harmonized construction rather than to lead to inconsistency; because, the cardinal principle is that the statute should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid absurdity and to have harmonious effect - It is also a well-settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision or a stipulated condition which is plain and unambiguous - it is necessary that the benefits conferred vide notification dated 9.9.2003 are extended and benefits conferred under Office Memorandum dated 1.4.2007 are given similar effect as that of notification dated 9.9.2003 and the same shall be curtailed in the manner which is not known to law whether the Government is empowered, invoking the right to reserve, to modify the provisions under notification dated 9.9.2003 and Office Memorandum dated 1.4.2007 as contended by Mr. A. Moulik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/ revenue - Once it is established that the respective Governments are giving the impugned duty exemption in public interest, the same cannot, at any stretch, be withdrawn unless there is a larger public interest involved - It is a settled law that an authority exercising delegated legislation cannot read in the provision granting powers of delegated legislation something more than what such provision in fact provides - to deny the benefits statutorily conferred upon the petitioners/assessees in the public interest, pursuant to the New Industrial Policy of the Central and State Governments, reducing the percentage of such statutory concessions, suffers from elements of arbitrariness and unreasonableness, which, in turn, are relatively illogical and irrational - the writ petitions are allowed
|