TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (2) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication to the respondents. 2. The Asstt. Collector in his order held that strictly going by the words in the Notification No. 198/76 the regulators cleared by the respondents were not covered by Serial No. 32 in the table contained in the notification. Therefore, according to him the concessional rate of duty which applied to "Electric fans all sorts" did not extend to the regulators. According to the appellate order the change made by the Finance Act of 1977 to Item No. 33(D) CET rendered the regulators eligible to the concession. 3. Shri Nigam, the Learned SDR argued that Notification No. 198/76 mentioned, at Serial No. 32, "Electric Fans all sorts" only. The change in Tariff Item No. 33 brought about in 1976 Finance Act modified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dents' reply to the show cause notice and argued that it appeared, by a reading of this paragraph that the respondents were fully aware of the legal position but still availed of the concessional rate deliberately without permission from the Central Excise Department. Shri Nigam submitted that at exemption should be applied for and obtained and supported his arguments by reference to 1986 (25) E.L.T. 338 (Tribunal) Grauer & Weil (India) Ltd. Vapi v. C.C.E. Baroda. He argued that under Rule 173 B(4) of C.E. Rules a classification list should have been filed but this was not done. As a result suppression of facts was therefore justified and the application of the longer period of limitation under Section 11 A of the Central Excises and Salt A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Fans (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. Calcutta - 1). He submitted that the demand was time-barred as the respondents filed RT 12 & D3 intimations and made known all facts to the department. He denied that there was any suppression. 6. In his rejoinder, Shri Nigam submitted that what was stated in the Budget proposals cannot over-ride the notification itself which alone should be considered. He reiterated that no classification list was filed after amendment to the Tariff item by budget and that another Notification No. 156/77, dated 18-6-1977 prescribing effective rates for "Fans and Regulators" indicated that even for the purposes of Tariff they were two different articles and that fans were brought into the Tariff Item No. 33(3) by an inclusive d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was examining a question relating to valuation and held that a Voltage Stabilizer, though indispensable, cannot be said to a part of the refrigerator of television set. This judgment was primarily in connection with valuation. It is in this context that the High Court held that prior to 1967, on which date Tariff Item No. 33-CET was amended, the value of the regulator could not form part of the value of the fan. We note the relevance of this judgment, and the argument of the learned SDR, to the effect that before the amendment of the Tariff a regulator could not be considered as part of the fan either of the classification or for valuation. 9. The learned Consultant for the respondents cited another judgment in 1982 E.L.T. 378 (A.P.). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are adequate grounds to justify the inference. The so-called "golden rule" of construction was stated in this way by Parke B : "It is very useful rule, in the construction of a statute, to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature, to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case' the language may be varied or modified, so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further." [Becke v. Smith (1836)]. 12. Applying these principles we do not find it necessary or correct to supply the word regulator to the relevant lines in the Notification No. 198 of 1976. There is nothing to ....