TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Board of Excise and Customs. The Central Government was of the view that the said order of the Central Board was not proper, legal and correct. Accordingly, notice dated 21.12.1981 was issued by the Central Government under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The proceedings so initiated were subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and the same is the subject matter of appeal No. 1413/ 81-D. The other two appeals arise out of the refund applications made by M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., the claims arising with reference to benefit under Notification No. 201/79 in respect of duty paid on the 3 raw materials mentioned supra. The lower authorities had rejected their claims and the appeals are against the said orders. 2. The reasons for rejection of the refund claims were that the 3 raw materials (falling under Item 68 CET) were consumed in the manufacture of masticated rubber [falling under Item 16-A(2) CET] which was free of duty and was then transferred to other factories (though of the same manufacturer) and hence the benefit under Notification No. 201/79 was not available. This was also the view of the Collector of Central Excise who had passed the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the Department verified the quantum of the 3 raw materials that had gone into the manufacture of the masticated rubber removed to the other factories elsewhere and this information was contained in the excise records under which the material was transmitted to the other factories and that after due verification the quantum eligible for exemption in terms of the above notification in respect of the final goods manufactured at the other factories was also worked out to the satisfaction of the Central Excise Officers in those factories and accordingly relief was being enjoyed by M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. in terms of this arrangement and that this arrangement was being successfully implemented ever since the orders of the High Court above mentioned and that the arrangement is effective even now. Shri Nariman referred to this in connection with his observations on certain earlier judgments of this Tribunal, in the case of M/s. MRF Ltd. themselves and with reference to the present issue itself, wherein the Tribunal had accepted the contention of the Department and held that it would be impossible to work out the relief under Notification No. 201/79 unless the final products a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on the basis that it would be impossible to correlate the quantum of the raw materials (that had gone into the production of masticated rubber) with the final production of tyres and other rubber products [falling under Item 16-A(2)] and since this correlation was the very essence of relief under Notification No. 201/79 no relief could be granted under the Notification when the consumption of the raw materials is not in the same factory which produced the final goods. Shri Nariman submits that the very fact that subsequent to the order of the Delhi High Court the Department and the assessees were able to work out a suitable procedure for establishing such a correlation and the fact that such a procedure has been working satisfactorily for the past over 5 years, should suffice to establish that the basis on which the Tribunal passed its earlier orders was defective. It is therefore his submission that we should not feel bound by the said decisions, but, on the other hand, interpret the terms of the notification in a manner consistent with the intention behind the notification and in a manner as would fulfil the said intentions and not defeat the said intention. It is in support o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubber comes into existence as an intermediate product in the manufacture of tyres and there can be no dispute that the initial input (3 in number) find their way into the final resultant product (Tyres). It was evidently taking this circumstance into consideration that benefit of the notification was being allowed by the Department itself in the Kottayam factory as noted above. The question is whether the fact that it is only the intermediate product (masticated rubber) that is manufactured in the factory in which the raw materials are consumed but not the final product (which is manufactured in another factory of the same manufacturer) should deny the benefit under the notification for that reason. 8. As already stated the intention behind the notification is to grant benefit. In a recent case the Supreme Court has held (Girdhari Lal and Sons - AIR 1986 S.C. 1499) as follows : So we see that the primary and foremost task of a Court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, the Court must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote/advance the object and purpose of the enactment. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
