TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (5) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teel (P) Ltd. who are Respondents herein holding them to be eligible for Modvat Credit on the input content in the finished goods lying in stock on the date when they opted for Modvat Scheme. In coming to the said decision, he had set aside the Order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Howrah North Division granting them only a restricted Modvat Credit amount of Rs. 7,082.00 on 14.164 Metric Tonnes of their input material as against their claim on a larger quantity of 66.586 Metric Tonnes. 2. Shri B.B. Sarkar learned Departmental Representative appeared for the Appellant Collector. He referred to the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector to the Respondents wherein it has been indicated that they had submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he arguments advanced by Shri Sarkar. He reiterated the plea taken by them before the Collector (Appeals) which was also accepted by him that the benefit of credit in terms of Rule 57H even after the deletion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57H was available in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of the final products which were cleared after 1-3-1987 on payment of duty. Though the reason why the said sub-clause was deleted had not been indicated, it is obvious, because the final products which were in stock after 1-3-1987 would have been cleared only after that date. At the time the sub-rule was amended with effect from 1-3-1987 it was considered necessary t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of law, the Court would be well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment by supplementing the written word, if necessary." He also referred to another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Collector of Customs v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 332 (SC). It was observed by them therein that reasonable construction which gives effect to the true intent and purpose of the provision is to be preferred to literal interpretation which leads to anomalous results. It was further submitted by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was deleted by Notification 20/89-C.E. (N.T.), dated 5-5-1989 was as follows :- (ii) such inputs are used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared from the factory on or after the 1st day of March, 1987. It is the deletion of this crucial provision from 5-5-1989 that has given rise to the present dispute. It was argued that the said sub-rule was deleted as it was considered to be no longer required. It was only a transitional provision and when the said sub-clause (ii) was deleted with effect from 5-5-1989, the date 1-3-1987 had passed long back and the clearances to be regulated under Rule 57H were being cleared only after 1-3-1987. There was no possibility of their having been cleared before 1-3-1987. Hence, it was n....