Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (5) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Credit on the input content in the finished goods lying in stock on the date when they opted for Modvat Scheme. In coming to the said decision, he had set aside the Order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Howrah North Division granting them only a restricted Modvat Credit amount of Rs. 7,082.00 on 14.164 Metric Tonnes of their input material as against their claim on a larger quantity of 66.586 Metric Tonnes. 2. Shri B.B. Sarkar learned Departmental Representative appeared for the Appellant Collector. He referred to the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector to the Respondents wherein it has been indicated that they had submitted their declaration under Rule 57G on 8-9-1989. At the time of filing of the declarat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ector (Appeals) which was also accepted by him that the benefit of credit in terms of Rule 57H even after the deletion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57H was available in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of the final products which were cleared after 1-3-1987 on payment of duty. Though the reason why the said sub-clause was deleted had not been indicated, it is obvious, because the final products which were in stock after 1-3-1987 would have been cleared only after that date. At the time the sub-rule was amended with effect from 1-3-1987 it was considered necessary to provide coverage to inputs used in the manufacture of the final products cleared after 1-3-1987. Later on such a condition was not necessary at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Court would be well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment by supplementing the written word, if necessary. He also referred to another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Collector of Customs v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 332 (SC). It was observed by them therein that reasonable construction which gives effect to the true intent and purpose of the provision is to be preferred to literal interpretation which leads to anomalous results. It was further submitted by the learned Consultant that it is well settled that if the interpretation of a fiscal enactment is open to doubt, the construction most beneficial to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re cleared from the factory on or after the 1st day of March, 1987. It is the deletion of this crucial provision from 5-5-1989 that has given rise to the present dispute. It was argued that the said sub-rule was deleted as it was considered to be no longer required. It was only a transitional provision and when the said sub-clause (ii) was deleted with effect from 5-5-1989, the date 1-3-1987 had passed long back and the clearances to be regulated under Rule 57H were being cleared only after 1-3-1987. There was no possibility of their having been cleared before 1-3-1987. Hence, it was not necessary to retain the provision regarding clearances of final products made after 1-3-1987. This argument though attractive does not provide the answer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... certain items which were not covered during the earlier period and it became necessary for such manufacturer to file declarations with effect from 25-7-1991. Since they would have been having inputs as well as the final product in stock at the time of filing the declaration, the sub-clause (ii) came to be inserted indicating the cut off date for clearances of the final products as 25-7-1991. The final products in such cases were to be cleared after the said date. This amendment cannot cover past cases. The submission by the learned Consultant in this regard is not acceptable. 7. For the reasons discussed above, I allow the Department s Appeal and set aside the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals). In the process, the Order of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates