Taxing notifications are read as issued: later district reorganisation and implied words cannot change excise zoning.

A taxing notification must be construed by the words used at the time of issuance, so the 1971 administrative reorganisation of Lakhimpur did not alter the meaning of "districts of Lakhimpur" in the 1970 excise notification or exclude Dibrugarh from Zone V. A later state reorganisation could not amend a Central excise zoning notification, and only the rule-making authority could change the zone fixation. For the 1981 notification, the omission of Dibrugarh could not be cured by implication, and the later 1982 notification was prospective. Dibrugarh therefore remained in the residuary zone from 5 November 1981 to 28 January 1982, with duty payable at the residuary rate for that period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reorganisation of the erstwhile district of Lakhimpur into a separate district of Dibrugarh in 1971 altered the meaning of the expression "districts of Lakhimpur" in the 1970 excise notification so as to take Dibrugarh out of Zone V; (ii) Whether the notification dated 5 November 1981, read with the later notification dated 28 January 1982, left Dibrugarh outside Zone V until 28 January 1982.

Issue (i): Whether the reorganisation of the erstwhile district of Lakhimpur into a separate district of Dibrugarh in 1971 altered the meaning of the expression "districts of Lakhimpur" in the 1970 excise notification so as to take Dibrugarh out of Zone V.

Analysis: The 1970 notification had to be construed according to the meaning of the words as used at the time of issuance. The expression "districts of Lakhimpur" referred to the geographical area comprised in that district on the date of the notification, including the then sub-division of Dibrugarh. A later administrative reorganisation by the State Government did not amend or control the meaning of the Central Government's notification issued under Rule 96-F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The zone fixation under the excise regime could be altered only by the Central Government under the enabling rule, not by a separate state notification made for administrative purposes.

Conclusion: The 1971 reorganisation did not move Dibrugarh out of Zone V under the 1970 notification, and this contention of the petitioners failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification dated 5 November 1981, read with the later notification dated 28 January 1982, left Dibrugarh outside Zone V until 28 January 1982.

Analysis: The 5 November 1981 notification was issued with knowledge of the separation of Dibrugarh from Lakhimpur, yet it referred only to "Districts of Lakhimpur" in Zone V and did not include Dibrugarh in any zone. The Court declined to supply the omitted word "Dibrugarh" in a taxing notification. The later notification dated 28 January 1982 expressly substituted the relevant words and was treated as prospective, not retrospective. Accordingly, the omission left Dibrugarh in the residuary zone until the date of the later notification.

Conclusion: Dibrugarh remained in the residuary zone from 5 November 1981 to 28 January 1982, and duty was payable at the residuary rate for that period in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded only to the extent that tea produced in Dibrugarh was liable to excise duty at the residuary rate during the interregnum between 5 November 1981 and 28 January 1982, with refund of any excess duty collected for that period.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing notification must be construed on the words used at the time of its issuance, subsequent administrative reorganisation by another authority does not alter its meaning, and a court cannot supply an omission or give retrospective effect to a later notification unless the rule-making power clearly authorises it.

---