SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 308

2005(2) Supreme 156
Supreme Court of India
(From Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi)
Mrs. Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
M/s. W.P.I.L. Ltd., Ghaziabad —Appellant
versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. —Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4228-4229 of 1999
Decided on 22-2-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Barnali Basak and Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : K.P. Pathak, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Binu Tamta and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.

Important point
Clarificatory notification granting exemption from duty would take effect retrospectively.

Headnote:Central Excise—Various notifications since 1978 exempting power driven pumps and parts thereof used for manufacture of pumps from excise duty—A consolidated notification ­issued dated 1.3.1994 but showing only power driven pumps exempted from duty—On representation by industries, amended notification issued dated 25.4.1994 granting exemption for parts also—Excise duty levied on parts manufactured by appellant during intervening period i.e. 1.3.1994 till 25.4.1994 and order was upheld by CEGAT—Appeal—Consistent policy of Government was to exempt parts of power driven pumps and while issuing consolidated Notification dated 1.3.1994, exemption in respect of said item could not be said to have been withdrawn or revoked and position was clarified by subsequent notification—Authorities were not justified in asking for duty for the intervening period.

       Held : The contention of the appellant, in our opinion, therefore, is well-founded that both power driven pumps as well as parts of power driven pumps used for manufacturing of pumps within the factory were exempted from payment of excise duty. We are also satisfied that notifications were rescinded and consolidated notification was issued on March 1, 1994 with a view to reduce number of notifications. No demand hence could have been made against the appellant in respect of parts of power driven pumps by issuing show cause notices. The submission of the appellant is well-founded that the Government was satisfied about the policy which was in vogue not to impose excise duty on parts of power driven pumps used in the factory premises for manufacture of power driven pumps and to clarify the position, the subsequent notification dated April 25, 1994 was issued. (Para 12)

       In view of the consistent policy of the Government of exempting parts of power driven pumps utilized by the factory within the factory premises, it could not be said that while issuing notification No. 46/94 of March 1, 1994, the exemption in respect of said item which was operative was either withdrawn or revoked. The action was taken only with a view to rescinding several notifications and by issuing a composite notification. The policy remained as it was and in view of demand being made by the Department, a representation was made by the industries and on being satisfied, the Central Government issued a clarificatory notification No. 95/94 on April 25, 1994. It was not a new notification granting exemption for the first time in respect of parts of power driven pumps to be used in the factory for manufacture of pumps but clarified the position and made the position explicit which was implicit. (Para 15)

Judgment

Thakker, J.—These appeals have been filed by the appellant against an Order in Original Nos. 123-29 of 1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division I, Ghaziabad, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Ghaziabad and also confirmed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (‘CEGAT’ for short).

2. The case of the appellant is that it is the manufacturer of power driven pumps and parts thereof designed for handling water. The power driven pumps as well as parts thereof which are used for manufacture of pumps have been exempted from levy of excise duty since 1978. Various notifications had been issued from time to time granting exemption to both, i.e. power driven pumps and also parts of power driven pumps which were used in the manufacture of the power driven pumps. Parts of power driven pumps which were not utilized for manufacture of power driven pumps within the factory were, however, outside the purview of exemption and they were subjected to levy of excise duty.

3. According to the appellant, with a view to reducing special exemption notifications and consolidating various exemption notifications in 1994, the Government rescinded 389 notifications with effect from March 1, 1994 and re-issued a consolidated notification incorporating earlier notifications vide Notification No. 46/94 dated March 1, 1994. In the said notification, power driven pumps were shown as an exempted item. Due to inadvertence, however, parts of power driven pumps used in manufacture of pumps within the factory which were all along exempted from 1978 were omitted. But there was no change in the Government policy in 1994 which was in vogue since 1978. The omission was, therefore, brought to the notice of the Government by the industries. The Government was also satisfied and amended the notification No. 46/94 dated March 1, 1994 by issuing another notification No. 95/94 on April 25, 1994 correcting the mistake and clarifying the position that parts of power driven pumps which were used in manufacture of power driven pumps would also be exempted. According to the appellant, the notification No. 95/94 dated April 25, 1994 was thus merely clarificatory in nature and an obvious error or omission which remained while issuing notification No 46/94 on March 1, 1994 was rectified by the subsequent notification No. 95/94 on April 25, 1994 and hence it was retrospective in operation. The resultant effect, according to the appellant, was that parts of power driven pumps which were to be utilized for manufacturing power driven pumps within the factory would continue to be exempted from payment of excise duty.

4. Unfortunately, however, show cause notices were issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division 1, Ghaziabad on October 3, 1994 and October 24, 1994 alleging therein that the appellant had cleared the parts of power driven pumps for use within the factory for the manufacture of submersible power driven pumps during the period between 1st March, 1994 and 21st April, 1994 without payment of duty which was subjected to central excise duty. The said item was exempted with effect from April 25, 1994 and the appellant was, therefore, liable to pay excise duty for the intervening period, i.e. 1st March, 1994 and 21st April, 1994.

5. The appellant submitted a reply on October 31, 1994 inter alia contending that it was not liable to pay excise duty. No suppression of facts or mis-declaration was alleged against the appellant and the demand was barred by limitation. It was also stated that notification No. 95/94 dated April 25, 1994 was retrospective in nature and exemption ought to be considered and granted from March 1, 1994. There was, therefore, no liability on the part of the appellant to pay any amount.

6. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division I, Ghaziabad, by an order dated March 31, 1996 confirmed the demand against the appellant and directed it to pay













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top