TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice A.P. Sen and Mr. Justice E. S. Venka taramiah [Judgment per : P.N. Bhagwati, J.]. - These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court allowing 12 writ petitions filed by different respondents. Each of the respondents owned at the material time not more than 4 powerlooms and carried on business of manufacturing cotton fabrics on those powerlooms. The case of the respondents was that each of them acquired his powerlooms from persons who were or had been licensees and started manufacturing cotton fabrics on those powerlooms prior to 1st April, 1961. The respondents claimed that since each of them had not more than 4 powerlooms in his factory, no excise duty was payable on the cotton fabrics manufactured by him and this claim for exemption was based on a notification dated 5th January, 1957 issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Superintendent of Central Excise, however, rejected the claim for exemption on the ground that though the powerlooms owned by each of the respondents were not more than 4, manufacture of cotton fabrics on them had st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r." 3. This item was later substituted by another item by a notification of the Central Government dated 19th January, 1957 and the substituted item was as follows : "Cotton fabrics manufactured by or on behalf of the same person in one or more factories commonly known as powerlooms (without spinning plants), in which less than 5 powerlooms in all are installed." The scope of the exemption granted under this item was restricted by the addition of the following proviso by a Central Government notification dated 26th November, 1960 : "Provided that this exemption shall not be applicable to a manufacturer who commences production of the said fabrics for the first time on or after the 1st December, 1960 by acquiring powerlooms from any other person who is, or has been a licensee of powerloom factory." There was a further change made by a notification issued by the Central Government on 1st March, 1961 and the then existing Item 7 was substituted by the following Item : "(7) Cotton fabrics manufactured by or on behalf of the same person in one or more factories commonly known as powerlooms (without spinning plants) in which less than 3 powerlooms in all but not roller locker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt fixed different rates "per shift, per month, per powerloom employed by or on behalf of the same person in the manufacture of cotton fabrics" depending upon the number of powerlooms employed by such person. The rates prescribed for a case where more than 2 but not more than 24 powerlooms were employed were Rs. 20/- where medium and/or coarse fabrics were manufactured and Rs. 25/- where the powerlooms were employed in the manufacture of superfine and/or fine fabrics. There was a proviso at the foot of the notification (hereinafter referred to as the first proviso) which laid down as to how the computation should be made where roller locker machine were employed. The rates prescribed for a case where more than 2 but not more than 24 powerlooms were employed, were partially modified with retrospective effect by a subsequent notification issued by the Central Government on 18th March, 1961 and the new rates were Rs. 10/- and Rs. 12.50 in respect of the first 4 powerlooms and Rs. 20/- and Rs. 25/- in respect of the balance. The first proviso dealing with the case where roller locker machines where employed however, remained unchanged. Then came another notification of the Central Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed in the amended notification dated 18th March, 1961. This was the position which obtained upto 20th April, 1961, when the second proviso was introduced exempting a manufacturer employing not more than 4 powerlooms and working even in not more than one shift from payment of excise duty. Each of the respondents had admittedly not more than 4 powerlooms and it was the case of the respondents that these powerlooms were worked in not more than one shift and hence the respondents claimed that they were exempted from liability for payment of excise duty by virtue of the second proviso. But the answer made on behalf of the Revenue was that the third proviso carved out an exception from the second proviso and since each of the respondents commenced manufacture of cotton fabrics for the first time after 1st April, 1961, he was not exempt from payment of excise duty, but was liable to pay the same at the next higher rate provided in the amended notification dated 18th March, 1961. 7. Now going back to the proviso under Item 7 of the notification dated 5th January, 1957, we find that the language of this proviso is clear and explicit and does not admit of any doubt or equivocation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or after the 1st April, 1961" and put them at the end of the proviso. That would have; clearly conveyed the intention of the Central Government that the powerlooms must be acquired by the manufacturer on or after ]st April, 1961 and if the powerlooms are acquired on or after 1st April, 1961, it must follow afortiorari that the production of cotton fabrics on the powerlooms by the manufacturer would necessarily commence on or after that date. But the Central Government advisedly placed the words "on or after the 1st April, 1961" after the clause referring to commencement of production and before the clause relating to acquisition of powerlooms. It is a well settled rule of interpretation applicable alike to the rule making authority as to the legislature that where there are two expressions which could have been used to convey a certain intention, but one of these expressions conveys that intention less clearly than the other, it is proper to conclude that if the craftsman used that one of the two expressions which would convey the intention less clearly, he does not intend to convey that intention at all. Moreover, here the dictates of grammar as well as language compel us to tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviso on its proper interpretation, enacts a substantive provision for payment of excise duty at the next higher rate in the cases therein specified and this substantive provision overrides the second proviso. The second proviso exempts a manufacturer employing not more than 4 powerlooms and working not more than one shift from payment of excise duty in those cases which do not fall within the third proviso and where a case is covered by the third proviso, the second proviso would be inapplicable and the manufacturer would be liable to pay excise duty at the next higher rate. This is the only way in which the two provisos can be harmoniously construed in a manner which would give effect to both. 9. We are, therefore, of the view that even though each of the respondents in the present case owned not more than four powerlooms, he would be liable to pay excise duty at the next higher rate under the third proviso to the notification dated 18th March, 1961, if he started manufacture of cotton fabrics on his powerlooms for the first time on or after 1st April, 1961, irrespective whether he acquired the powerlooms from the licensee before or after that date. We must, therefore, set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
