TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The petitioner did not get any relief because it was applicable to industrial undertakings to which Industrial (Development Regulations) Act, 1951 did not apply. However, by the notification No. 91/1972 dated March 17, 1972 exemption was provided as under : All electric wires and cables falling under Item No." 33B(ii) of these said First Schedule manufactured by an Industrial Unit in respect of which an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the capital investment on plant and machinery only installed therein as on the date of initial installation of the plant and machinery is not more than Rs. 7.5 lakhs but excluding - uninsulated copper wires (whether single or stranded or bunched); and winding wires made on copper, 4% ad valorem All others, …… ….. 5% ad valorem." 2.The petitioner learnt of this notification in January 1973 and therefore, by the application, dated January 8, 1973 the petitioner pointed out to the authorities that as the capital investment of the petitioner on plant and machinery as on the original date of initial installation of the plant and machinery i.e. December 31, 1964, was below Rs. 7.5 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concerned Mr. Desai pointed out that the reasons given for discarding the certificate of the chartered accountant were not justified when the company has produced all the relevant books and the chartered accountant had duly certified the capital investment as on the date of initial installation on December 31, 1964. There is also justification on his grievance that the appellate authority also erred in assuming that the commercial rate was not applicable to this concern which was governed by the Industrial (Development Regulation) Act, 1951, because that would be the conditions under the earlier notification No. 173 of 1968. Therefore, Mr. Desai was emphatic in his grievance that the statutory authorities had never cared to apply their mind to the statutory language for incorporating this exemption notification in question. He, therefore, challenged this order as a patently perverse order. 4.Mr. Mehta, however, pointed out that the order of the Assistant Collector was not happily worded but really be proceeded on the proper interpretation of this exemption notification as the exemption was never intended for the benefit of such industrial units which had on different dates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... randon in his speech in terms pointed out the modern approach. In earlier days fine balance of arguments might have called for a decision in favour of the tax payer but now such a traditional doctrine was never adopted. It was considered out of date as referring to the old days when the Crown in its taxing capacity was regarded as a public enemy. A modern Hampden would in many quarters be pilleried as a tax-evader. Even Lord Morris pointed out at page 890 that an ambiguity is not created merely because an unsuccessful argument as to the meaning of words has been skillfully presented. Their Lordships had to interpret in the context of value added tax-the relevant expression goods are supplied for consideration payable periodically and it was held that the hiring of a TV set was not a 'once for all' transaction. Lord Simon at page 884 beautifully pointed out the test of ambiguity in the following words :- "It is not an ambiguity if a term (T) means X in relation to A and Y in relation to B, both A and B being expressed or implied in the proposition. It is only an ambiguity if T means either X or Y in relation to either A or B. To use T to mean X in relation to A and Y in relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en in the same industrial unit the plant and machinery with which it might have started might change from time to time and so long as the capital investment on the basis of such initial value did not exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs the exemption was intended. But thereafter, exemption was surely intended to cease because any other view would lead to discrimination of other concerns giving an unequal treatment, and make the whole provision entirely unreasonable and abnoxious. The capital investment would be the total capital investment on plant and machinery which had been installed in the industrial unit. In such cases where the installation date of the plant and machinery changes even the other dates have to be taken into account to arrive at the total capital investment. Of course, on the basis of taking the initial value of the plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit from time to time. It is on that basis that this yardstick has to be applied to find and whether the total capital investment is not more than Rs. 7.5 lakhs or it exceeds this statutory limit, for deciding whether the lower rate was attracted or not. 8.Mr. Desai argued that the initial installation can be only o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed having regard to the context in connection with which it is employed", (vide Attorney General v. Carlton Bank (1899) 2 Ch. B 158 at p.164 per X Lord Russel of Killowen). In Supdt. of Taxes v. Omkarmal Natharmal Trust, AIR 1975 S.C. 2065 (2078) Rowlatt J.'s aforesaid rule was held as not meant to exhaust all principles of interpretation of construction of every type of provision in a taxing statute or to apply to every situation which may arise. It was in terms held that in a system, such as ours, where the constitutionality of all statutes including taxing statutes, can be subjected to judicial review, other principles also are not infrequently invoked. Therefore, looking at the context of the condition of exemption, we cannot give such a literal construction as Mr. Desai suggests, and it must be held that as the petitioner company had in the industrial unit at the relevant time installed plant and machinery whose capital investment at the initial value was to the extent of Rs. 21 lakhs as certified by the chartered accountant, the petitioner could hardly claim any concessional rate of 4% duty under the aforesaid exemption notification. Therefore, even though the Assistant Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
