TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary to the notification dated 29-11-2002. orders of the revisional authority and the appellate authority impugned herein are hereby quashed and the order of the assessing authority is restored. Writ petition is allowed accordingly - 15575 of 2010 (T-EX) - - - Dated:- 28-6-2011 - S. Abdul Nazeer, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri N.R. Bhaskar, CGSC, for the Respondent. [Order]. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs. In the usual course of its business, it avails credit of duty paid on inputs and such credit is utilised either for payment of duty on goods cleared into the domestic tariff area or towards payment of duty on goods exported under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ( Rules, 2002 for short). The petitioner has been regularly exporting bulk drugs and for the export so undertaken, it has obtained advance licenses for duty free import/procurement of inputs required for the manufacture of the bulk drugs. The advance licenses so obtained are being redeemed from time to time after discharge of the export obligation. The petitioner has been paying central excise duty on the finished pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoking the provisions of the said notification and requested to drop the notice. In addition to the issue of show cause notice dated 7-7-2006, the department filed separate appeals against each of the above mentioned orders before the third respondent challenging the grant of rebate on the ground that the assessing authority had erred in sanctioning the rebate without verifying as to whether the petitioner had fulfilled the restriction imposed in condition No. (v) of Notification No. 43/2002-Cus., dated 19-4-2002. The petitioner filed objections to the said appeal and sought dismissal of the said appeals. The appellate authority passed an order-in-appeal No. 19/2007-C.E., dated 16-1-2007 in terms of which he has allowed the appeals filed by the department and held that the assessing authority has erred in granting the rebate. The order-in-appeal has been passed on the ground that the original authority has wrongly granted rebate of duty paid on goods exported inasmuch as the petitioner availed of exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus., dated 19-4-2002 on inputs imported and used in the manufacture of the products exported. Feeling aggrieved by the said o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in India which are specified in the said licence and in respect of which facility under Rule 18 or Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has not been availed. The said condition in the notification has been corrected by a corrigendum No. 43/2002-Cus., dated 29-11-2002 wherein it has clarified that after the words under Rule 18 , the words under Rule 18 (rebate of duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of resultant product) shall be corrected. The said corrigendum relates back to the date of the notification dated 19-4-2002. If that is so, the order of the assessing authority has to be sustained. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Dunlop India Limited - (1994) 92 STC 571 and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Another v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and Another - (2004) 7 SCC 673. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the corrigendum referred to above is prospective in nature and it will not have retrospective operation from 19-4-2002. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty or exemption from duty, as the case may be. It is then argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in matters of taxation, strict construction must be adopted and that if the assessee is entitled to any advantage or benefit on account of any error or mistake of the assessing authority it should not be denied to him. I do not think that the said principle has any relevance here, where an accidental printing error is sought to be corrected in a statutory notification issued by the Government. It is difficult to deny this right of correction to the Government. Such a power is ancillary and incidental to the substantive power conferred upon the Government to issue a notification by Section 4-B. Such a power is necessary for an effective exercise of the substantive power. 8. In J.K. Udaiplur Udyog Ltd s case (supra) the Apex Court has held that the use of the word corrigendum itself indicates, the intention was to correct and to rectify what the State Government thought had been erroneously done. It is clear from the aforesaid judgment that a corrigendum is nothing but a correction and it relates back to the notification itself. 9. In Mustang Rubbers Industrial E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
