1986 (8) TMI 60 - SC - Central Excise

Interpretation of 'duty of excise' clarified under Central Excise Rules

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus MODI RUBBER LIMITED AND OTHERS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus MODI RUBBER LIMITED AND OTHERS - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 849 (SC), 1986 AIR 1992, 1986 (3) SCR 587, 1986 (4) SCC 66, 1986 (0) JT ... Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the term 'duty of excise' in Notifications No. 123/74-C.E. and No. 27/81-C.E.2. Constitutional validity of the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the term 'duty of excise' in Notifications No. 123/74-C.E. and No. 27/81-C.E.The primary issue in these appeals and writ petition was the interpretation of the term 'duty of excise' in the two notifications issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The question was whether this term referred exclusively to the basic duty of excise levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or if it also encompassed special duty of excise, additional duty of excise, and any other kind of excise duty levied under various Finance Acts and other Central enactments.The court noted that the term 'duty' in the Central Excise Rules is defined in Rule 2(v) to mean 'the duty payable under Section 3 of the Act.' Therefore, the exemption granted under Rule 8(1) could only apply to the duty of excise payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court emphasized that the language of the notifications must be interpreted in the context in which it appears. Since the notifications were issued under Rule 8(1), the term 'duty of excise' must be interpreted as referring to the duty of excise payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.The court also considered the historical context, noting that when the first notification was issued on 1st August 1974, there was no special duty of excise on tyres. Special duty of excise was introduced later in 1978 through various Finance Acts. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to assume that the Central Government intended to grant exemptions for duties that did not exist at the time the notification was issued.Furthermore, the court observed that when the Central Government intended to grant exemptions from duties other than the basic duty of excise, it explicitly mentioned such intentions in the notifications. The absence of such specific language in the notifications in question indicated that the exemptions were intended only for the basic duty of excise.2. Constitutional validity of the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982The second issue was the constitutional validity of the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982. This Act was enacted to provide statutory rules for interpreting the term 'duty of excise' in exemption notifications and to limit the term to the basic duty of excise levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.The court held that the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982, was merely declaratory of the existing law. Since the court had already interpreted the term 'duty of excise' in the notifications as referring only to the basic duty of excise, the Act did not introduce any new principles but merely clarified the existing legal position. Therefore, its constitutional validity could not be challenged.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed. The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and held that under the Notifications dated 8th November 1967, 1st August 1974, and 1st March 1981, the respondents were entitled to exemption only in respect of the basic duty of excise levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They were not entitled to claim any exemption in respect of special duty of excise, additional duty of excise, or auxiliary duty of excise. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the Union of India.