1969 (4) TMI 13 - HC - Central Excise

Court rules Notification No. 30/60 misinterpreted, directs proportionate duty rates for steel ingots.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the interpretation of Notification No. 30/60 by the revenue authorities was incorrect. It held ... Duty payable by the petitioner on scrap iron Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 30/60 dated 1st March 1960.2. Applicability of reduced duty rates on steel ingots manufactured using duty-paid pig iron.3. Validity of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, and subsequent authorities.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 30/60 dated 1st March 1960:The central issue in these applications was the interpretation of Notification No. 30/60. The petitioner argued that the notification's reduced duty rate should apply proportionately to steel ingots manufactured using duty-paid pig iron. The department, however, interpreted the notification to mean that the reduced rate was applicable only to steel ingots manufactured exclusively from duty-paid pig iron. The court noted that the language of the notification contained ambiguity and that the department had introduced the term 'only,' which was not present in the original notification. The court found substance in the petitioner's contention that the notification did not explicitly state 'entirely,' 'exclusively,' or 'only,' and therefore, the departmental authorities' interpretation was not justified.2. Applicability of Reduced Duty Rates on Steel Ingots Manufactured Using Duty-Paid Pig Iron:The petitioner contended that the benefit of the reduced rate prescribed under the notification should be available to the extent of the quantity of duty-paid pig iron used in manufacturing steel ingots. The court agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the intention of the notification was to grant relief to manufacturers using duty-paid materials. The court reasoned that if the department's interpretation were accepted, it would render the notification nugatory, as no manufacturer could avail of the relief intended by the notification. The court also highlighted that the principle of interpretation of taxing statutes should prevent double taxation unless the language of the statute was compellingly clear.3. Validity of the Orders Passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, and Subsequent Authorities:The court found that the orders passed by the revenue authorities, including the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, the Collector, Central Excise, Patna, and the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, were not supportable. The court quashed these orders and accepted the petitioner's stand. The court also directed that the petitioner must provide reliable material to the department to satisfy that a certain quantity of scrap iron, liable to duty at the rate mentioned in item No. 25, Schedule I, was used. The department was instructed to make correct calculations based on this material, and any excess amount already realized should be refunded.Conclusion:The court concluded that the interpretation adopted by the department was incorrect and that the intention of Notification No. 30/60 was to provide relief to manufacturers using duty-paid pig iron. The orders passed by the revenue authorities were quashed, and the petitioner's interpretation was upheld. The petitioner was required to provide evidence of the quantity of duty-paid scrap iron used, and the department was to make appropriate calculations and refunds accordingly.