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

2011 Supreme(SC) 623

2011 (5) Supreme 637
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh — Appellant
versus
M/s Doaba Steel Rolling Mills — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3400 of 2003
with
Civil Appeal Nos.8342-8344 of 2004,
Civil Appeal No.8345 of 2004 & Civil Appeal Nos.4992-4993 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.35323-35324 of 2010)
Decided on : 6-7-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
A taxing statute should be strictly construed.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of statues – Taxing statutes – A taxing statute should be strictly construed – There is no room for any intendment – Equitable considerations are entirely out of place. (Paras 19 to 21)

        1921 (1) KB 64; (1961) 2 SCR 189; (1999) 8 SCC 667 – Relied upon

        (b) Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 – Rule 5 – Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules will be attracted for determination of the annual capacity of production of the factory when any change in the installed machinery or any part thereof is intimated to the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Rule 4(2) of the Rules. (Para 23)

        1999 (112) ELT 719 (Tri.) – Distinguished impliedly

        (c) Judicial Review – Merely because in some cases revenue has not questioned the correctness of an order on the same issue, it would operate as a bar for the revenue to challenge the order in another case. (Para 24)

       Facts of the case:

        1. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled steel products of non-alloy steel in a hot steel rolling mill, classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944, for the purpose of levy of Excise duty etc.

        2. The annual capacity of production of the respondent was determined at 7683.753 MT, as per the formula laid down in sub-section (3) of Rule 3 of 1997 Rules. However, keeping in view Rule 5, the annual capacity was finally fixed at 11961.135 MT on the basis of actual production of the mill during the financial year 1996-97.

        3. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent and held that Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules cannot be applied in view of change in technical parameters of the rolling mill.

        5. Reference petition was also rejected by the High Court.

        6. The question arising herein is whether Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules will apply in a case where a manufacturer proposes to make some change in the installed machinery or any part thereof and seeks the approval of the Commissioner of Excise in terms of Rule 4(2) of the said Rules?

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned orders are not sustainable.

       

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J. —

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 35323-35324 of 2010.

2. This batch of appeals, by grant of leave, arises out of judgements and orders dated 17th October 2001 in C.C.E.S.No.4 of 2001, 21st October, 2003 in C.E.C. 11, 12, 13 of 2003 and C.E.C. No.122 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana; 6th November 2009 in Review application No.29356 of 2008 and 8th July 2010 in C.E. Reference application No.113 of 2000 both passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the impugned judgements, in the main reference applications, filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”), the questions referred by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, as it then existed, (for short “the Tribunal”) have been answered in favour of the assessee and the review applications preferred by the Commissioner against the said judgments have been dismissed.

3. Since all the appeals involve a common question of law, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, to appreciate the controversy, the facts emerging from C.A.No.3400 of 2003 are being adverted to. These are as follows :

4. Section 3A of the Act, which has a chequered history of insertions and omissions in the Act, was inserted in the Act for the second time by Act 26 of 1997, with effect from 14th May, 1997, the provision relevant for the purpose of these appeals. The Section has again been omitted by Act 14 of 2001, with effect from 11th May, 2001. Section 3A of the Act enables the Central Government to charge Excise duty on goods on the basis of annual capacity of production of mills etc. in respect of the notified goods.

The relevant part of the Section reads as follows:

“3A. Power of Central Government to charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production in respect of notified goods.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, where the Central Government, having regard to the nature of the process of manufacture or production of excisable goods of any specified description, the extent of evasion of duty in regard to such goods or such other factors as may be relevant, is of the opinion that it is necessary to safeguard the interest of revenue, specify, by notification in the Official Gazette, such goods as notified goods and there shall be levied and collected duty of excise on such goods in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) Where a notification is issued under sub-section (1), the Central Government may, by rules,—

(a) provide the manner for determination of the annual capacity of production of the factory, in which such goods are produced, by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and such annual capacity shall be deemed to be the annual production of such goods by such factory; or

(b) (i) specify the factor relevant to the production of such goods and the quantity that is deemed to be produced by use of a unit of such factor; and

(ii) provide for the determination of the annual capacity of production of the factory in which such goods are produced on the basis of such factor by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and such annual capacity of production shall be deemed to be the annual production of such goods by such factory:

Provided that where a factory producing notified goods is in operation during a part of the year only, the annual production thereof shall be calculated on proportionate basis of the annual capacity of production:

Provided further that in a case where the factor relevant to the production is altered or modified at any time during the year, the annual production shall be re-determined on a proportionate basis having regard to such alteration or modification.

............................................................................”

5. It is clear from a bare reading of the Section that the reason which persuaded the Leg











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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