TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No. 15660/94) has been filed on 10-7-1994 with a prayer for permission to amend the prayer clause of the main petition on the basis of subsequent events, so as to include an additional prayer for quashing the adjudication order No. 30/94, passed on 30-5-1994 by the 3rd respondent during the pendency of the petition. 2.Facts are not very much in dispute. The petitioners in all the petitions are small scale units, engaged in the business of manufacturing rerolled products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These products were exempt from duty by virtue of SSI exemption Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988, provided no credit of the duty paid on the inputs was taken under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, (in short, the "Rules"). This Notification No. 202/88 was issued under Rule 8(1) of the Rules. The petitioners used to take credits under the Modvat Scheme (under Rule 56A or Rule 57A) for the duty paid on their inputs and to debit the same for payment of duty on their final products. This is how they were not getting or claiming exemption from payment of duty on their inputs under the Notification No. 202/88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. It is also not in dispute that the final products of the petitioners fell within Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Act and that but for their opting for modvat scheme, they would have been entitled to claim exemption under the Notification No. 202/88 in respect of their final products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Act. According to the Department, as the petitioners has availed of the modvat scheme and given up their claim for exemption under the earlier Notification No. 202/88, they cannot be allowed exemption under the Notification No. 1/93 by computing the aggregate value after excluding from consideration their clearances of such final products in respect of which credits were taken under the modvat scheme. On the contrary, according to the petitioners, they were entitled to deduct the value of clearances in respect of which credits of the duty paid on the inputs were taken under Rule 56A or 57A. In the alternative, their case was that the Notification No. 1/93 itself was liable to be quashed, as it made unreasonable classification of manufacturers; one of those who availed of the benefit of exemption and second of those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le the objection and proceed to decide the case on merits. 5.The exemption Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988 was worded as follows : "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 90/88-Central Excises, dated the 1st March, 1988, the Central Government hereby exempts goods of description specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed (such goods being hereinafter referred to as products) and falling within Chapter 72, Chapter 73 or Heading No. 84.54 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule : Provided that such final products are made from any goods of the description specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table (such goods being hereinafter referred to as "inputs") and falling within the Chapter 72 or Chapter 73 of the said Schedule on which the duty of excise leviable under the said Schedule or the additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chedule to the Tariff Act and that as provided in the Explanation, all such inputs used by them were deemed to be the inputs on which duty had already been paid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the deeming provision made in the Explanation given in the Notification No. 202/88, all their inputs used in the manufacture of their final products were deemed to have already suffered the duty and accordingly they were entitled to claim total exemption of duty under the Notification No. 202/88, if they had not opted for the Modvat Scheme and thereby had not become ineligible to claim the exemption by virtue of second proviso to the said notification. But it was argued, for obtaining the benefit of Modvat Scheme as well, it was necessary for the inputs to have suffered the requisite duty and by virtue of similar deeming provision made in the direction issued by the Central Government under the second proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the said Rules, ingots and re-rollable materials of iron or steel purchased from outside and lying in stock on or after the 7th day of July, 1992 with the re-rollers were directed to be deemed to have paid duty at the rate of Rs. 920/ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d does not refer to any person who could not avail of the benefit for non-fulfilment of one or the other of the conditions imposed by the earlier notification. It was further argued that if there was doubt as to the true import and meaning of the words employed in the subsequent notification and if they were capable of two interpretations, there is a catena of authorities to say that in such a situation, the interpretation that favours the tax-payer has to be preferred. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department also cited several authorities to say that when the meaning of any statutory provision or notification is plain and simple, effect must be given to it irrespective of its consequences. According to him, the earlier notification of 1988 did not give any option; either to take the benefit of exemption under the notification, or of the benefit of Modvat Scheme under Rule 56A or 57A. The exemption under the notification was subject to conditions and if they were not fulfilled, the exemption could not be claimed. Accordingly it was further urged that the subsequent Notification No. 1/93 contemplated exclusion of only such goods which were unconditionally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r tonne, and the credit of duty under Rule 57A of the said Rules in respect of such ingots and re-rollable materials used, without undergoing the process of melting, in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 or 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), may be allowed at the rate of Rs. 920 per tonne, without production of documents evidencing the payment of duty if any. These orders shall be valid till further amendment." The second condition about no claim of credit under the Modvat Scheme, therefore, appears to be more or less a provision to deter a person from taking double benefit in respect of one and the same commodity; say for instance, one under the notification and the other under the Modvat Scheme. We are of the view that the sole purpose of granting exemption from payment of duty or benefit of Modvat Scheme is to give incentive and some financial help to the small scale industries and this very purpose will be frustrated if persons opting for the exemption and those opting for the Modvat Scheme are differently treated even though the resultant benefit under the two schemes of exemption and Modvat credit is one and the same. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hereby allowed by directing the respondents to give the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 to the petitioners and others like them, who took benefit of Modvat Scheme instead of total exemption from duty under the Notification No. 202/88, by excluding clearances of their excisable goods, which were exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon, but in respect of which, instead of exemption, credits under the Modvat Scheme were taken, while computing the aggregate value of clearances under the notification No. 1/93. As a necessary consequence, adjudication Order No. 35/94, dated 15-7-1994 impugned in W.P. No. 13614/94 and similar Order No. 30/94, dated 30-5-1994 of the 3rd respondent sought to be impugned in W.P. No. 9663/94 by filing W.P. M.P. No. 15660/94 are quashed. Now the 3rd respondent shall re-compute the aggregate value of clearances made by the petitioners in these petitions in the light of this order and then decide if they are or are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. No order as to costs. 12.[Oral Order per : P. Venkatarama Reddy, J.]. - Though I agree with the conclusion and the operative part of the judgment of my learned brother, K.M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted as having exceeded the limit of Rs. 200 lakhs. Explanation II lays down as to how the aggregate value has to be computed for the purpose of this Notification. Leaving out the unnecessary portions, the Explanation says that the clearances of any excisable goods which are exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon by virtue of the Notification issued under Rule 8(1) or Section 5A(1) shall not be taken into account. (emphasis supplied). Thus, the value of exempted goods will stand excluded while computing the aggregate value of clearances under the Notification (1 of 1993). 16.This takes us to the question whether any part of the excisable goods cleared by the petitioners are exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon under a Notification providing for such exemption. It is in this context that a reference to Notification No. 202 of 1988 issued under the then existing Rule 8(1) becomes relevant. That notification, which has been extracted in the order of my learned brother, exempted certain final products "from the whole of the duty of the excise leviable thereon", provided that (1) such final products are made from the specified inputs on which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim the exemption under Notification No. 202 of 1988 or to avail of the MODVAT credit under Rule 57A and pay the differential duty on the finished products. To fortify their argument, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the manufacturers who had exercised the option to avail of the credit and paid the differential duty on the finished products should not be subjected to any disadvantage in comparison with the manufacturer who claimed total exemption from duty on the finished products by choosing to opt out of MODVAT scheme. There is no reasonable basis for such treatment, it is pointed out. 18.Thus the true scope and effect of the second proviso to Notification No. 202 of 1988 looms large in these writ petitions. The crux of the issue centres round the second proviso and the effect of the alleged option exercised by the petitioners. 19.While on this aspect I would like to steer clear of a misconception implicit in the arguments on both sides. The assumption that there is an option left to the assessee either to avail of the credit on inputs under MODVAT scheme or to avail of the exemption from duty under Notification No. 202 of 1988 and the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 57C is absolute and categorical. In the face of this clear-cut embargo, it is futile to content that the assessees have still an option to utilise the credit on the inputs under Rule 57A read with Rule 57G. No statutory order or Notification has been placed before me which, despite the prohibition contained in Rule 57C, enables the assessee to seek shelter under MODVAT scheme. Thus, I am of the view that the MODVAT credit was erroneously allowed to the petitioners even after the Notification 202/88 granting exemption from the whole excise duty payable was an issued by the Central Government. Obviously, this was done under a mutual mistake and the course of action adopted by the petitioners and assented to by the Department has no sanction of law. 21.Viewed in this light, what is the interpretation to be placed on the 2nd proviso to Notification No. 202/88 and what effect it has on the present cases, is the next question that falls for consideration. It appears to me that in the face of the prohibition contained in Rule 57C, the 2nd proviso has practically no part to play vis-a-vis the clearance effected long after the notification. The purpose of introducing the 2nd proviso in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avail of the exemption under Notification 1 of 1993, there will be no difficulty in holding that the petitioners are entitled to take advantage of the Central Government's order in TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-1994. 22.I shall now proceed to consider the problem in a different perspective. I will assume for the time being that the 2nd proviso applies and non-compliance thereof takes the goods out of the category of exempted goods under Explanation-II. In this context, I will further assume that a manufacturer can legally choose one of the two methods i.e., either to claim exemption of the whole of the duty under Notification No. 202/88 or to forego the exemption and avail of the credit of duty paid on inputs. In the latter case, the differential duty (representing the difference between the duty on inputs and the duty on final product) is paid or deemed to have been paid on the finished product. Why should such a manufacturer suffer a disadvantage unless he has enjoyed an obvious benefit which could not have been there if exemption had been claimed. This is in fact the line of thinking of Agarwal, J., and I respectfully agree with him. Nothing has been stated in the counter-affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
