Cross-utilisation of excise credit permitted where Rule 57AB's plain wording imposed no same-enactment restriction.

Rule 57AB was construed on its plain language to permit cross-utilisation of additional duty of excise credit among the specified enactments. The term "said" was read as referring back to all duties earlier mentioned in the rule, rather than confining credit to the same enactment from which it arose. The comparison with earlier and later provisions, which used clearer restrictive wording, confirmed that the relevant rule did not impose such a limitation. A subsequent clarification could not override the unambiguous text of the rule, and the demand, penalty, and impugned order were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit of additional duty of excise paid under one of the specified enactments could be utilised towards payment of duty payable under the other enactment under Rule 57AB.

Analysis: The relevant rule was construed on its plain language. The word "said" was held to refer back to all the duties earlier mentioned in the rule, and not to require that credit of each duty be confined only to duty under the same enactment. The comparison with the earlier notification and the later rule, both of which expressly restricted utilisation by using clearer language, supported the view that the rule during the relevant period did not prohibit such cross-utilisation. The rule-making clarification could not override the unambiguous wording of the rule, and in a taxing provision construction cannot proceed on assumptions where the language is clear.

Conclusion: Cross-utilisation was permissible under Rule 57AB, and the demand, penalty, and impugned order were unsustainable.

---