9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the. Customs Tariff Act, 51 of 1975. The petitioner has enjoyed the concessions annexed to the imports made pursuant to such contracts with regard to basic Customs duty and additional duty. The problem presented to the petitioner and equally so, to the Revenue is with reference to the auxiliary duty on the items of machinery imported by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, specific items 'paper making machinery and component parts thereof falling under Heading 84.31 imported by it have been totally exempted from auxiliary duty as per Notification 62/83-Customs, dated 1-3-1983. According to the Revenue, since the above items are also those imported pursuant to the specific contracts registered under Heading 84.66, they have to bear the auxiliary duty to the extent of 20% of the value as per the Notification 61/83-Customs, dated 1-3-1983. The body of the Notification 62/83-Customs, dated 1-3-1983 and the relevant items of the Table relatable to Heading 84.31 are extracted as follows :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), read with sub-clause (4) of Clause 45 of the Finance Bill, 1983, which clause has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8195; ... 7. ... ... 8. ... ... 9. ... ... 10. ... ... 11. ... &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in Column (3) of the Table annexed hereto and falling within the Chapter of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) specified in the corresponding entry in Column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India, from so much of the auxiliary duty of Customs leviable thereon under sub-clause (1) of Clause 45 of the said Finance Bill, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of twenty percent of the value of such goods as determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the First mentioned Act. Sl.No. to the Customs Tariff Act, '1975 Chapter No. in the First Schedule Description of the goods (1) (2) (3) 1. ... ... 2. ... ... 3. ... ... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revail. The maxim was also applied while considering the operation of two statutes or laws or rules, enacted simultaneously. The maxim has been frequently applied to resolve apparent conflicts between provisions of the same statute or of different statutes of the same date. In this behalf, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following pronouncements in support of the above principle :- J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh - AIR 1961 SC 1170; U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain - 1978-2-LLJ 399 at pp 404-405; Superintendent Central Excise, Surat v. Vac Met Corporation (P) Ltd. - 1985 (22) ELT 330 (S.C.) = AIR 1986 SC 1167; M/s. Atui Glass Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1986 (25) ELT 473 (S.C.) = AIR 1983 S.C. 1730 at 1736. 4. The second principle which helps the case of the petitioner is the rule of construction of fiscal law. Whenever there is an ambiguity on the question of construction of fiscal law, it is well-settled that it has got to be resolved in favour of the taxpayer rather in favour of the Revenue. If the case could be brought within either of the two provisions, it is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Notification No. 62/83, would also come within the general Heading 84.66 covered by Notification No. 61/83, it is not possible to deny the petitioner the benefit of the exemption accorded in Notification No. 62/83. The principles discussed above amply and forcibly support the case of the petitioner that the rule generalia specialibus non derogant should apply to the present case. 7. Even on the second principle urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner covering reliefs at the hands of this Court, I find that the case of the petitioner stands on a strong footing. The Notification 62/83 is unambiguous and it specifically refers to 'paper making machinery and component parts thereof, coming within Heading 84.31 without any exclusion on the ground the said items namely 'paper making machinery and component parts thereof, could also come within the ambit of the general Heading 84.66. Even assuming that there is an ambiguity and conflict between the two Notification, I am obliged to apply the principle that any ambiguity in the matter of construction of fiscal law should be resolved in favour of the tax payer rather than the Revenue. 8. It is a well-settled rule that on the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
