TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r laminated with plastics, other than those of Heading No. 59.02 (hereinafter referred to as the `coated fabrics ), classifiable under Heading No. 59.03 of the Tariff. The coated fabrics were made out of the base knitted fabrics (which were classifiable under Chapter 60 of the Tariff). Under exemption Notification No. 141/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, which were subsequently replaced by exemption Notification No. 63/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987, the coated fabrics were exempted from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the Tariff, as was in excess of Rs. 7 per sq. meter (this rate had undergone change from time to time) plus the duty for the time being leviable on the base fabrics under Chapter 52 of the Tariff, if not already paid. As the base fabric of the appellant company was classifiable under Chapter 60 and not under Chapter 52 of the Tariff, the show cause notice was issued to them on 18-7-1989 asking them to show cause as to why for the period from Feb., 1989 to 11-6-1989, Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 694765.30 should not be demanded under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules ), and why penalty should not be impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the fabrics so produced out of base fabrics of Chapter 52 only. The base fabrics used by them were classifiable under Chapter 60 of the Tariff. He referred to Notification No. 141/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, No. 63/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 and No. 150/89-C.E., dated 12-6-1989, and submitted that all along the intention of the Government was to provide concessional rate of Central Excise duty to the coated fabrics with knitted base fabric also. With regard to Appeal No. E/4407/93-D, the ld. Advocate stated that the show cause notice had been issued after the issue of the amending Notification No. 150/89-C.E., dated 12-6-1989. There was no allegation of suppression. Although the show cause notice was for the normal period of limitation, in view of the Supreme Court s decision in the case of Rainbow Industries Private Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 3 (SC) = 1994 (55) ECR 1 (SC), the classification list already approved could be revised from the date of the show cause notice only. Reference was also made to the Supreme Court s decision in the case of J.K. Steel Limited v. Union of India, 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 355) (SC) = AIR 1970 SC 1173, wherein it has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go to `suppression . The exemption notification was specific. There was no ambiguity or absurdity in the notification. It is a settled law that there is no room for intendment while interpreting the notification. In support of this point, the ld. JDR relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Sonu Impex v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 292 (Tribunal). The base fabric used by them was not covered by the exemption notification, and approval was obtained by them after making wrong declaration. With regard to Appeal No. E/728/92-D, it was submitted that the base fabric was classifiable under Chapter 60 while the appellants declared their base fabric as classifiable under Chapter 52. In the circumstances, the extended period of limitation was applicable. Reference was made to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Jaishri Engineering Company Pvt. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 449 (Tribunal). They were taking modvat credit on PVC. In their classification list at page 60 of the paper book effective from 19-5-1989 they had written for the first time that their base fabric was knitted; while all along from the very beginning their base was knitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table, subject to the conditions, if any, laid down in the corresponding entry in column (5) thereof. TABLE Sl. No. Heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Rate of duty Condition (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 8. 5903.19 Textile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics Rs. 6 per square metre plus the duty for the time being leviable on the base fabrics under Chapter 52, if not already paid. - 9. 5903.29 Textile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics Rs. 7.50 per square metre plus the duty for the time being leviable on base fabrics under Chapter 54 or Chapter 55, as the case may be, if not already paid - 10. 5903.99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coated fabrics. On representations from the industry, reference to Chapter 52 in the tariff entry under heading No. 59.03 was deleted (refer para 7 of the memo in appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in Appeal No. E/4407/93-D; also refer Sl. No. 35 relating to Chapter 59 at page B. 18 in 1986 (24) E.L.T., relating to the Finance Act, 1986, dated 13-5-1986). While deleting the reference to Chapter 52 in the Tariff heading 59.03 with effect from 13-5-1986, no change was made in the applicable exemption Notification No. 141/86-C.E., which prescribed the concessional effective rates of Central Excise duty. It is further seen that reference to Chapter 52 continued in succeeding exemption Notification No. 63/87-C.E, dated 1-3-1987 (Notification No 141/86-C.E. was rescinded by Notification No. 88/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987). As a consequence while coated fabrics with cotton base, irrespective of the fact whether the cotton base did or did not fall under Chapter 52, (was whether woven or knitted), with effect from 13-5-1986 could be classified under sub-heading No. 5903.19, the provisions of Notification No. 141/86-C.E. and Notification No. 63/87-C.E. did not cover such fab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods falling under that sub-heading, under Notification No. 141/86-C.E. or 63/87-C.E. At no stage the matter was examined from the angle that if Sl. No. 8 or 9 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 141/86-C.E., and Sl. No. 2, 3 or 4 under Notification No. 63/87-C.E., were not applicable, then (by virtue of the fact that there was also a residuary entry under Heading No. 59.03) the concessional rate as under Sl. No. 10 in the Table annexed to Notification No. 141/86-C.E., or Sl. No. 5 in the Table annexed to Notification No. 63/87-C.E., could apply. While we agree that the heading number as shown against these Sl. Nos. 10 in Notification No. 141/86-C.E., and 5 in Table annexed to Notification No. 63/87-C.E., is Heading No. 5903.99, but to our mind it should not make such a difference as to take up the goods to the tariff rate. Notifications are part of the tariff, are statutory in character and have the force of law. [Refer Bombay High Court decision in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Limited v. Union of India, 1987 (32) E.L.T. 40 (Bom.), and Tribunal decision in the case of Polyformalin (P) Limited Cochin v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, 1985 (21) E.L.T. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mong its several provisions is permissible [refer Supreme Court decision in the case of Innamurigopalan v. State of AP, 1964 (2) SCR 888]. In this connection, we may also refer to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Indian Administrative Service (SCS) Association U.P. and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1993 AIR SCW 1135, wherein the Hon. Supreme Court have observed in para 6 of their judgment that the Court could in an appropriate case iron out the creases to remove ambiguity to give full force and effect to the legislative intention. But the intention must be gathered by putting up fair construction of all the provisions reading together. This endeavour would be to avoid absurdity or unintended unjust results by applying the doctrine of purposive construction. In para 8 of that judgment it has been ruled that if the language is plain, clear and explicit, it must be given effect and the question of interpretation does not arise. If found ambiguous or unintended, the Court can at best iron out the creases. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v. Dattatraya Dohankar and Another, 1992 AIR SCW 2081 had held as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
