9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta, Advocate, for the Respondents. ORDER The facts of this case in brief are that Proviso(v) to Exemption Notification No. 226/77-C.E., dated 15-7-1977 fixed a concessional rate of duty for Drill as defined from time to time by the Textile Commissioner under the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948 for which maximum ex-factory prices had not been specified by the Textile Commissioner under the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other on 2-5-1968. The first order defined "Drill". The second Order defined "Controlled Drill". He invited our attention to the Textile Commissioners' Un-Official Note (U.O. Note) dated 21-9-1978 to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue to the effect that the definition of "Drill" even in the first order was intended for price control and was thus the definition of "Controlled Drill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the respondents and hence they were not entitled to the concession. 3. The respondents stated that during the material period proviso (v) to the exemption notification applied to "Drill" and not to "Controlled Drill", that it was not permissible to read words into the clause which did not exist there nor to fall back on some internal communication of the Textile Commissioner on the sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not exist is, therefore, not acceptable as it would render the said proviso meaningless. The respondents are correct in saying that during the material period, the Textile Control Order of 1964 defined "Drill" while the Textile Control Order of 1968 defined "Controlled Drill". The first Order remained in force till it was specifically superseded by another Order dated 17-12-1979. The proposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
