TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case are that the Central Electrical and Mechanical at Korba was established by the appellant, M/s. South Eastern Coal- fields Ltd., at Korba in 1967 to facilitate repair of all mining machinery and equipment used in the adjacent coal mines and other collieries. The Central Government declared this workshop as a mine under the provisions of Section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952 under certificate dated 1-5-1969. 4. Section 2(j)(viii) of the Mines Act states that mine includes "All workshop situated within the precincts of a mine and under the same management and used solely for purposes connected with that mine or a number of mines under the same management." 5. Notification No. 63/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 was issued by the Central Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence was entitled to the exemption under the Notification No. 63/95-C.E. 8. The Commissioner by his order dated 22-6-1999 held against the appellant and ordered the payment of duty amounting to Rs. 31,59,704/- as mentioned in the show cause notice and also directed recovery of interest and penalty for contravention of various rules. 9. The appellant filed an appeal before the CEGAT, which by order dated 30-11-2000 held that the goods produced by the appellants, were dutiable and the appellant would not entitled to the exemption contained in the Notification No. 63/95-C.E. The Tribunal confirmed the demand of excise duty under the order of the Commissioner but set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants. Aggrieved, this appeal has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 63/95-C.E. since as per Section 2(m) of the Factories .Act a factory means any premises in cluding the precincts thereof but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952. 14. In our opinion the registration of a mine under the Factories Act has nothing to do with the assessee's claim for exemption under the Central Excise Act. In fact the reference to the Factories Act itself was wholly irrelevant and we fail to see what the Factories Act has to do with the present case. The present case is covered by the Central Excise Act and has nothing to do with the Factories Act. Hence the view taken by the Tribunal is, with due respect to it, clearly erroneous. 15. It has to be considered in the present case whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raj", "jalaj", "saroj", etc. have the same meaning i.e. Lotus. 22. According to the literal rule of interpretation, if the meaning of a word or expression is clear, there is no scope for interpretation and we have to follow the plain and grammatical meaning. 23. However, where the meaning of a word or expression is not clear, obviously the literal rule of interpretation cannot be applied, and hence we have to take resort to other rules of interpretation e.g. the Heydon's mischief rule, the purposive rule, etc. In our opinion in the present case the purposive rule should be applied. Under this rule, we have to see the purpose for which the provision was made. Looking at it from this angle, we are of the opinion that the word I 'precincts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
