TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Tariff. This notification was later superseded by Notification No. 305/79-C.E. dated 4th Dec. 1979, under which the effective rate of duty on caprolactum manufactured from duty paid Benzene (derived from raw naphtha), was reduced to 23% ad valorem. Notification No. 305/79-C.E., dated 4-12-1979 was superseded by Notification No. 39/80-C.E., dated 23-4-1980 SO under which the effective rate of duty of caprolactum became charge.28 1/2% ad valorem.. 4. As per the case of the appellants, after the issue of the Notification No. 305/79-C.E., dated 4-12-1979 trade notices were issued by various Collectorates viz. West Bengal Collectorate Trade Notice No. 220/GL/58/CE/ 1979 dated 15-12-1979, Baroda Collectorate Trade Notice No. 249/79-Plastics 7/79 dated 17-12-1979; Bangalore Collectorate Trade Notice No. 273/79 (79 Plastics) dated 18-12-1979; Pune Collectorate Trade Notice No. 225/79 dated 1-1-1980; and Bombay Collectorate Trade Notice No. MP/Plastics (1/1980 dated 5-1-1980 clarifying as under :- As the exemption from Excise duty envisaged under each of the Notification Nos. 302/79-C.E., 305/79-C.E., 306/79-C.E., 307/79-C.E. and 308/79-C.E., is conditional, the coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him, these Trade Notices were issued under the instructions of the Govt. of India. The Central Board of Excise Customs. As per these Trade Notices, which were issued after the issue of Notification No. 305/79-C.E., dated 4-12-1979 it was clarified that the countervailing duty on the affected products would remain unchanged, meaning thereby the rate of the c.v. duty would be 25% ad valorem as before. Believing these Trade Notices as correct and binding, the appellants took clearances of the consignments of the imported caprolactum ex-bond and paid c.v. duty at 25% ad valorem. According to Shri Kohli, the learned consultant, even if a Trade Notice amounts to not more than executive instructions, it would be binding on the department and the department would be estopped from contending that what was mentioned in the Trade Notices should not be adhered to. He cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. M/s. Indo-Afghan Agencies (AIR 1968 S.C. 718) and also a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Nav-Gujarat Paper Industries v. Supdt. of Central Excise and Others (Cencus 1978-24-D and 25-D) = 1977 E.L.T. (J 67) in support of his contention. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 4-12-1979 was in force. This Notification laid down certain conditions and before the benefit under that notification could be availed of, those conditions should have been fulfilled. Admittedly, the appellants did not fulfil those conditions as laid down in that notification and therefore, they were rightly refused the benefit of that notification. According to him, a notification has a statutory value whereas a Trade Notice has no statutory effect and therefore, the Govt. of India cannot be precluded from putting forward conditions contrary to the contents of Trade Notices issued by its officers. He pointed out that there cannot be any estoppel in taxing matters. He cited a decision of Supreme Court in the case Dunlop India v. Union of India (1983-E.L.T.-1566-S.C.) in support of his contention. He further submitted that this Tribunal is not competent to declare a statutory provision illegal on the ground that it is discriminatory. There is no force in the plea of the appellants that the matter be stayed till the Govt. of India decides the representation alleged to have been made on behalf of the appellants in this regard. As per the law which was in force at the relevant tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products would remain unchanged meaning thereby the rate of c.v. duty would be at 25% ad valorem as it was before but we have to see what is the value of such Trade Notices in the eyes of law ? 15. It has been laid down in various judicial decisions of different High Courts including that of Bombay High Court in Union of India and Others v. The Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (1978 E.L.T. 1680) that Trade Notices have no statutory effect. Trade Notices cannot alter the meaning of the words of the Statute and it cannot be read for the purpose of controlling the plain meaning of a tariff entry. In the absence of any statutory sanction for the issuance of a Trade Notice, no excise duty can be levied on the basis of such a Trade Notice. In making the assessment and in levying duty under the Excise Act; a Trade Notice must be ignored. There is no provision in the Excise Act empowering the Board to issue directions to the Assessing and Appellate Authorities for deciding disputes between the assessees and the department. Such directions would completely vitiate the proceedings and make a mockery of the judicial process. The Board cannot issue directions for inclusion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... give rise to equitable estoppel so as to prevent the Govt. from interpreting the notification correctly at a later stage. 17. In this case before us, Notification No. 305/79-C.E., dated 4-12-1979 issued by the Govt. of India under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is the law owing its source of power to statute. If the Collectors in different Collectorates had placed an incorrect interpretation over the notification by issuing Trade Notices at one stage, it does not give rise to an equitable estoppel so as to prevent the Govt. from interpreting the notification correctly, at a later stage. Punjab Haryana High Court also took the same view in the case of State of Punjab v. Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. (AIR 1977 Punjab Haryana, page 268). 18. Under those circumstances, there can be no estoppel against the statute and the plea raised by the learned consultant of the appellants on this point cannot be said to be legally correct. 19. The other plea of the appellants that other Collectorates have not raised such demands as has been done in Madras Collectorate in respect of this product and this amounts to discrimination and has caused extreme hardship to the appellants, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
