TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. The said amendment was brought by N/N. 8/2010-CE (NT) dated 27/02/2010. The intention of legislature has been clarified by the subsequent amendment that the word goods appearing in the second part of the first proviso are only notified goods and nothing else - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/3395/2010-EX [DB] - A/71152/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 13-6-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri T. R. Rustagi, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal by the appellant-assessee relates to interpretation of Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules, 2008, wherein the first proviso of the said rule provides as follows:- provided that during such period, no manufacturing activity, whatsoever, in respect of notified goods shall be undertaken and no removal of goods shall be effected by the manufacturer. The issue to be decided is, whether the word goods used in the second clause of the proviso includes inputs, or it refers to the word notified goods. 2. The brief fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2010 amendment has been carried in the following words:- provided that during such period, no manufacturing activity, whatsoever, in respect of 'notified goods' shall be undertaken and no removal of 'notified goods' shall be effected by the manufacturer except that notified goods already produced before the commencement of the said period may be removed within first two days of the said period. The ld. counsel further points out that the said amendment is clarificatory in nature, as is evident from the Explanatory Notes annexed to the Finance Bill or Budget for the year 2010, wherein clause 21.2 reads as follows Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 have been issued to amend the PMPM Rules, 2008 to effect certain technical changes in the said Rules (Notification No. 8/2010 CE (NT) dated 27/02/2010 refers) The ld. Counsel further states that it is evident from the Explanatory Notes that the said word notified goods 'as introduced in the proviso for the word goods in the second part is by way of clarification to clarify the confusion prevailing in the interpretation. The ld. further points out tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance stock of notified goods of existing RSP and their packing material on the day he discontinues manufacturing of goods of existing RSP. Thus, it is evident that the word goods have been used at several places in the PMPM Rules, which mean notified goods and nothing else. Similarly, in Rule 10 also in the first proviso what is intended is that the manufacturer will not be manufacturing the notified goods. No removal any notified goods should be made, although the word notified have not been mentioned in the second of proviso part and it has been introduced in the said proviso subsequently by way of a clarificatory amendment. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. The ld. counsel also relies on the ruling by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Versus Hari Chand Shri Gopal reported at 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein the question for consideration in these appeals was whether a manufacturer of a specified final product, falling under the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the Tariff Act ), is eligible to get the benefit of exemption fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral and technical in their nature, on the other, must be kept clearly distinguished. In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) , this Court held that the principles as regard construction of an exemption notification are no longer res integra; whereas the eligibility clause in relation to an exemption notification is given strict meaning wherefor the notification has to be interpreted in terms of its language, once an assessee satisfies the eligibility clause, the exemption clause therein may be construed liberally. An eligibility criteria, therefore, deserves a strict construction, although construction of a condition thereof may be given a liberal meaning if the same is directory in nature. Doctrine of substantial compliance and intended use : 24. The doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably be expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the essence or the substance of the requirements. Like the concept of reasonableness , the acceptance or otherwise of a plea of substantial complianc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the thing to be done but are given with a view to the orderly conduct of business, they may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict compliance. In other words, a mere attempted compliance may not be sufficient, but actual compliance of those factors which are considered as essential. 5. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue, who relied on the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we are satisfied that the word goods used in the second part of the first proviso to Rule 10 of the PMPM rules indicates only notified goods and nothing else. We are also satisfied that by no stretch of imagination, the word goods includes inputs. We also find that in the several provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules the word inputs has been used exclusively and never interchangeably with the words goods . Further, this interpretation is also substantiated by the amendment of the the said PMPM Rules, 2010, wherein the word notified has been added before the word goods in the second part of the first proviso to the said Rule 10. The said amendment was brought by Notification No.8/2010-CE (NT) dated 27/02/2010. Thus, the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
