COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus HIMALAYAN COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCT UNION LTD.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 07-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
v. 
HIMALAYAN COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCT UNION LTD. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2000 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Excise Laws: 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: 
Item No. 68 First Schedule-Liquid Nitrogen-Excise duty-Exemption 
from-Held: Liquid Nitrogen falls under Item No. 68 Sch. /-Hence, not 
liable to excise duty if the value of the plant manufacturing it does not exceed 
the statutory limit-Central Excise and Salt Rules, 1944-Notification No. 
105180-CE dated 19.6.1980. 
Exemption Notification-Purpose of-Held: Benefits of exemption 
notification are to be provided to the investor and manufacturers-Such 
benefits not to be denied to those who are entitled to it by giving a different 
meaning other than that plainly flowing from the notification-Interpretation 
of Statutes. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Said goods"-Meaning of-In the context of Notification No. 105180-
CE dated 19.6.1980 Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 
The respondent manufactured butter and skimmed milk powder etc. in 
its industrial complex. For purposes of chilling plant of Dairy unit, the 
respondent had installed a plant manufacturing liquid nitrogen which item 
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
fell under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 
1944. By means of Notification No. 105/80-CE dated 19.6.1980 excise duty 
payable on goods falling under Item No. 68 was exempted on the condition G 
that the total value of the capital investment made from time to time on the 
machinery installed for manufacturing liquid nitrogen was not more than Rs. 
ten lakhs. 
According to the respondent-manufacturer the total capital investment H 
431 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A in the plant and machinery manufacturing liquid nitrogen was less than Rs. 
ten lakhs and, therefore, the benefit of exemption from excise duty wa_s 
admissible under the Notification dated 19.6.1980. 
The, Assistant Collector, Central Excise, rejected the claim of the 
respondent on the ground that the total value of investments in all the plants 
B manufacturing butter and skimmed milk powder and other dairy products as 
well as for manufacturing of liquid nitrogen was to be taken into account. 
The appeal preferred against this order was rejected by the Collector 
-
(Appeals). Both the authorities had, however, held that liquid nitrogen itself 
was a finished product and fell under Tariff Item 68. However, the Customs, 
C Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the 
respondent and held that the respondent was entitled for the benefit under 
the Notification of exemption. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD: l~ The expression "said goods" occurring in Notification No. 
105/80-CE dated 19-6-1980 signifies or identifies the goods which are covered 
under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 
in respect of which exemption has been granted. In the Notification dated 
19.6.1980 the goods falling under Item 68 are to be referred as "said goods". 
Therefore, it is not possible to take into consideration the value of investment 
E of all the plants and machinery manufacturing different items viz. goods other 
than the "said goods". 1438-D, El 
~ 
Devidayal Electronics & Wires Ltd. v. Union of India, (1984) 16 ELT 30 
(Born.), approved 
F 
Golden Press v. Deputy Collector of Central Excise, (1987) ELT 273 
(AP), referred to. 
2. The Notifications, by which exemption or other benefits are provided 
by the Government in exercise of its statutory power, normally have some 
G purpose and policy decision behind it. Such benefits are meant to be provided 
to the investors and manufacturers. Therefore, such purpose is not to be 
defeated nor those who may be entitled for it are to be deprived of it by 
interpreting the notification, which may give it some meaning other than what 
is clearly, and plainly flowing from it. 1438-H; 439-AI 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 77-78 of 1989. 
.. 
___,. 
C.C.E. v. HIMALAYAN CO-OP. MILK PRODUCT UNION LTD. [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 433 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.88 of the Central Customs A 
Excise and Gold (Contra!) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in O.No. 34-35/88-
B in E/2019/84-C-E/2021of1984-C. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 637 ofl99l. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.90 of the Central Excise Customs 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. E/2773/86-C in 
O.No. 768 of 1990-C. 
B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.