TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,585.97 paise against the petitioner in respect of the purported arrears of Central Excise duty allegedly due on account of M/s. Gaya Textiles Private Limited. The petitioner is a unit of National Textiles Corporation. 2. The aforementioned M/s. Gaya Textiles Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 was having its textiles mills at Gaya and was engaged in the manufacturing of cotton fabrics of different varieties. Subsequently the mill was given on lease to M/s. Gaya Cotton and Jute Mills who started running the same. It is admitted that cotton textiles and cotton fabrics are excisable goods within the meaning of the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and as such Central Excise duty is pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter to be referred to as the said Act). In the said Act the "appointed date" has been defined to mean as 1st April, 1974, from which date the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to the sick textiles undertakings stood transferred to and vested absolutely in the Central Government or the National Textiles Corporation, as the case may be. 4. By virtue of or under the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act, every liability other than the liabilities specified in sub-section (2) thereof, in relation to the aforementioned sick textiles undertakings, in respect of any period prior to the appointed date remained the liabilities of such owner and were to be enforced against them and not against the Central Government or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave priority over the others. Evidently the amount at the hands of the Commissioner of Payments received by him in lieu of nationalisation of sick textiles undertakings in question is to be disbursed in terms of the aforementioned statutory priorities. 8. From a perusal of the said Act, it would be evident that the same is a self contained code and any person having a claim as against the owner of a sick textile undertaking has to file a claim before the Commissioner of Payments in accordance with the provisions made therein. 9. The petitioner has asserted, which facts are not denied or disputed by the respondents, that in terms of the aforementioned Ordinance No. 9 of 1972 as also the said Act the management of the Mill in occupation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the Account No. 1 dated 16-12-1967; similarly, from a perusal of Annexure 6 to the writ application it would appear that the petitioner's representation was rejected in respect of the alleged outstanding excise duties amounting to Rs. 17,585.97 paise. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act, the liabilities of the mill in relation to a period prior to the "appointed date" remained the liability of the owner of the sick textiles undertaking, which was nationalised in terms of the provisions of the said Act. 14. For a better appreciation of the points involved in this case Section 5(1) of the said Act is reproduced hereinbelow :- "Every liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their letters dated 28-1-1975, 3-12-1979 and 2-7-1982 being in relation to the period prior to the "appointed date" cannot be enforced as against the petitioner, which is a unit of the National Textile Corporation. 18. It is a well settled rule of construction that the language of a provision or a rule should not be construed in a manner which would do violation of phraseology used thereto. It is also a well settled principle of law that if the words of the statutes are themselves clear and unambiguous, then no more is necessary other than to expound these words in their ordinary and natural senses. It is also well known that the words themselves alone, in such case, declare the intention of the law givers. In my opinion, the words of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of my finding aforementioned phraseology used in Sec. 5 is absolutely clear, it must be held, that the petitioner is not liable to discharge the liabilities of the owner of a sick textile undertaking in respect of a period prior to the appointed date, i.e., 1st of April, 1974. 20. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, reported in 1978 L.I.C. page 709 wherein the Supreme Court while considering the effect of the provisions of Section 9 of Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 held that all the monetary liabilities of the owner in relation to prior to the appointed date remained that of the owner. In my opinion, Section 9 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
