TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceed Rupees two lakhs in a financial year, were entitled to exemption on their first clearance of metal containers during the financial year upto the value of Rupees one lakh. 4. With effect from 1-3-1976, the Government of India introduced a procedure known as the Simplified Procedure for assessment of the excise duty on goods falling under certain specified items of the Central Excise Tariff and manufactured by small units whose production during a financial year did not exceed Rupees five lakhs. This was done by inserting a new Chapter VIIB in the Central Excise Rules comprising new Rules 173R to 173RM, and also issuing Notification No. 14/76, dated 23-1-1976 under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The effect of these changes was that in respect of goods covered by the Simplified Procedure, the average annual quantity or value of goods removed by the assessee was to be determined on the basis of his clearances during the relevant preceding period. The duty liability was to be discharged by the assessee in the manner prescribed in Rule 173RD by paying, on a monthly basis, the duty based on the average annual quantity or value as determined in his case under Rule 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification. Their appeal to the Appellate Collector was also rejected, on the ground that (a) under sub-rule (5) of Rule 173RA the appellants should have come under the Simplified Procedure; and that (b) under proviso (iii) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 173RA, such of those licensees who came under the Simplified Procedure would not be eligible for the benefit of any other exemption notifications issued under Rule 8(1). It is against this decision that the appellants have come to the Tribunal. 7. The appellants have made the following main points :- (1) Rule 173R to 173RM do not compulsorily bring in all assessees; (2) There is no proviso (iii) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 173RA; (3) The second proviso to Notification No. 14/76 no doubt states that no exemption granted under any other notification under Rule 8(1) shall apply to such cases. However, it refers to goods the duty on which is payable by the manufacturer in the manner provided for in Rule 173RD or in accordance with Chapter V. This proviso did not apply to goods removed under Rules 49 and 52. (They have not commented on the fact that Rules 49 and 52 are a part of Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules); (4) The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 14/76 was applicable in respect of all assessees, whether working under the Simplified Procedure or under Physical Control, and it was also applicable to all exemption notification issued in respect of goods covered by the Simplified Procedure. His submission was that since the appellants did not opt for the Simplified Procedure, they had necessarily to conform to the Physical Control Procedure under Chapter V, which they in fact did. The second proviso to Notification No. 14/76 therefore applied to them, and it had the effect of nullifying the concession contained in Notification No. 97/70 sofaras they were concerned. In this view he submitted that the appeal should be rejected. 9. This case involves a reference to the very datailed rules in the new Chapter VIIB of the Central Excise Rules and to the fairly complex Notification No. 14/76. It has been remarked that the expression Simplified Procedure was somewhat of a misnomer. This remark is not without some truth, it is a matter of common knowledge, of which we can take note, that this procedure was introduced on the recommendations of a high-level committee known as the Central Excise (Self Removal Procedure) Revie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iz., metal containers, were specified under sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 173RA. It is also an established fact that the goods were cleared under the basic procedure as prescribed in Chapter V, viz., the Physical Control Procedure. (The appellants have sought to argue that their clearance was under Rules 49 and 52. As pointed out in para 7(3), this argument leads them nowhere, since these two rules are very much a part of Chapter V). Without getting lost in the details of Chapter VIIB and Rules 173R et seq it may be stated that under the provisions contained in Chapter VIIB, all manufacturers who were eligible to work under the Simplified Procedure had to do so, paying duty as provided in Rule 173RD. It they did not, they had to pay duty in the manner provided in Chapter V, working under the Physical Control Procedure. There was no third option open to them, such as that of working under the system of Production Based Control (corresponding broadly to the general Self Removal Procedure as in force before the recommendations of the S.R.P. Review Committee were implemented), covered by Chapter VIIA of the Central Excise Rules. It is not necessary to dwell further on this aspect, in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er V). It may be said that this was not the best way to make such a comprehensive provision, affecting a large number of earlier notifications. It may also be said that a better way would have been to make a specific amendment to each such notification, on the lines of the one indicated in the preceding paragraph. But can it be said that the provision was an ineffective one, and should be deemed not to have any effect on earlier notifications such as Notification No. 97/80? We have given our careful consideration to this issue, and we think the answer must be in the negative. As already observed, Government did have the power to make a provision having the effect of modifying or rescinding earlier notifications. Every notification has to be read along with any later notifications which relate to the same goods, and subject to any amendments effected through such later notifications. If Notification No. 97/70 is read along with the subsequent Notification No. 14/76, the combined effect clearly is that the benefit of Notification No. 97/70 was not available to manufacturers in the position of the present appellants. No doubt Government could have made the provision in a different way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
