LexITC BHADRACHALAM PAPER BOARDS LTD versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ITC BHADRACHALAM PAPER BOARDS LTD. A v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD. J APRIL 15, 1994 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B ~ ' Central Excise Rules, 1944: Rule 8 ( 1 )-Exemption from excise duty on paper for five yea1'"from date of first clearance or of notification, later extended by an1endn1ent to paperboard in 1984-Held, the expression "this notification 11 in the amendment notification refers to the original notification of April 24, c 1981 only. Constitution of India, Article 14-Exemption from duty on paper from 1981 ownwards extended to paperboard from 198'f-Held, not discriminatory, arbitrary or irrational. D Interpretation of Statutes-Beneficial constructiort-Held, scope of ex- emption from duty being extended to paperboard only from 1984 is one of policy for the Govemment to decide and the Court cannot by interpretation enlarge the scope of the exemption. By a notification dated April 24, 1981 fifty per cent exemption on E excise duty was made available on printing and writing paper provided the clearances were not effected "after the expiry of live years from the date of first clearance of the said goods". By a subsequent notification dated April 2, 1984, the exemption was extended to paperboards and by a third notification dated November 9, 1984 it was clarified that the exemption F • would not be available to clearances effected after the expiry of live years from the date of first clearance from the factory "or the date of publication of this notification whichever was later." The Appellant claimed the exemption from 1979 when it started manufacturing paperboard but it was given the benefit only from April 24, G 1981. The CEGAT rejected the Appellant's plea. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the Appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The expression "this notification" appearing in the notification dated November 9, 1984 has to refer to the notification of April H 531 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R. A 24, 1981. The contention that the word "this" in the notification dated November 9, 1984 refers to the notification dated April 2, 1984 cannot be accepted on the plain language of the notification dated November 9, 1984. (535-A-B] 2.1. There was no irrationality in exemption of printing and writing B paper from April 1981 while giving the benefit of the same to paper board for the first time from April 1984. Insofar as utility of the product is concerned, paper board does stand on a footing different from printing and writing paper. If it is borne in mind that the concerned notification was issued on representation of the Paper Industry that confining the exemp- tion to printing and writing paper alone was not achieving the object, the C rationality of the notification becomes apparent and acceptable. (538-A-B] Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, JT (1990) 1 SC 462, referred to. D 2.2. There is no discriminatory treatment in denying full benefit to those units which started production prior to 1.4.84, as for dlfferent purposes different cut off dates may be fixed having regard to the pur- poses to be achieved. (538-B-C] 2.3. The differential treatment given to the paper board is not even E arbitrary as good reasons exist for treating it differently and exempting it from dlfferent dates. (538-C] 3.1. Why exemption to paper board was given by notification of April 1984 and not by April 1981 notification is really a question of policy, the scope and width of which is for the Government to decide and not for this F Court. (536-H, 537-AJ G 3.2. The view taken here cannot be said to be unduly restricted interpretation of the notification of April, 1984. An endorsement of the appellant's contention would amount to enlarging the scope of exemption which the Court cannot. (537-A-B] K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, (1982] 1 SCR 629; Union of India v. Suksha Intemational and Nutan Gems, [1989] 1 SCR 1; Union of India v. Wood Paper Ltd., [1990] 2 SCR 659 and Collector of Central Excise v. Newo/i Sugar Factory, (1993] Supp. 3 SCC 69, referred to. H Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, (1985] 2 SCR 287; • ITC PAPER BOARDS LTD. v. CC.E. [HANSARIA.J.] 533 Collector of Central Excise v. Parley Exp01ts (P) Led., [1988] Supp. 3 SCR A 933 and Tata Oil Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, [1989] 3 SCR 839, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (NM) of 1991. Civil Appeal No. 4990 From the Judgment an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.