TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (2) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 18-6-1977. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 12-12-1979 to the appellants asking them to show cause to explain as to why the differential duty of Rs. 13,21,559.30 should not be demanded from them, on the goods cleared during the period 1-1-1978 to 30-10-1979. The Assistant Collector adjudicated the case and held that annual installed capacity for the mill exceeds 5,000 MT but does not exceed 10,000 MT. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector and also held that longer period of five years would be attracted in the case. On appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector for readjudication. The Assistant Collector again adjudicated the case on 23-7-1986 and concluded that the annual installed capacity of the mill was more than 10,000 MT and confirmed the demand. On appeal to Collector (Appeals), the case was sent for decision to Collector, Central Excise. The Collector, Central Excise confirmed the demand. 3. Shri M.L. Lahoty, the learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri J.M. Sharma, the learned JDR for the respondent. 4. The appellants argued before us that a show cause n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is well settled that a rule framed under the Act is a part thereof and has to be construed as such for all purposes. Therefore, rules made under a statute must be treated as if they were in the Act itself both for the purpose of construction and also for the purpose of obligation." We find that no doubt, Rule 10 was omitted with effect from 17-10-1980. We observe that Section 11A having similar wordings came into force simultaneously thus, maintaining its continuity. It is well settled principle of law that Rule framed under the Act is a part of the Act and has to be construed as such for all purposes. Having regard to this fact, we hold that the show cause notice was legal and proceedings under the show cause notice could be continued after 17-11-1980. On the question of annual installed capacity of the paper mill, the appellants argued that the paper mill was set up in the backward region of Marathwada and the production was commissioned in January, 1979. That they imported second hand machinery and the production during the first six months was only 1113 tonnes, a proposal was made to the financial institution in July, 1979 for installation of Bleach Plant to increase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alled capacity being 2000 mertic tonnes or less than also filed certificate of Chartered Engineer as also from Saharanpur Institute of Paper Technology. The DGTD is a highly responsible body of Government in whom Govt. reposes the greatest trust. A certificate issued by DGTD should not be thrown out on certain hypothetical arguments. In their correspondence with DGTD the respondents had disclosed the production figures for 10 years, out of which in five years, it did not exceed 2000 MT. After having considered all the salient facts and data, the Ministry of Industry had issued a certificate of registration for 2000 MT annual capacity. It may also be pointed out the prescribed form of application has no column like the installed capacity which may have relevance with reference to Notification 128/77. This apart it appears that the annual production may not correspond with installed capacity. From Shri Iyengar's letter it appears that ordinarily the licensed capacity should be treated as installed capacity and accordingly to the endorsement on the respondent's licence the capacity is about 2000 metric tonnes. The certificate issued by DGTD should not be discarded on the ground that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....city of 6000 MT for wrapping paper and packing paper on the basis of maximum utilisation of plant and machinery; that the words Rs. 6000 MT' was substituted by 9000 MT under letter dated 24-12-1975. The Department also contested that the Ministry of Industry in their letter No. V(132) 74 - Paper, dated 12-1-1978 had informed the assessee that the Government of India had allowed some more time for taking effective step upto 31-8-1978. When the assessee was asked to obtain the certificate from DGTD about their installed capacity of the paper mill, they could not produce such certificate. However, the DGTD in their letter No . DPP-40(788)/74, dated 13-5-1980 communicated that the assessees had been permitted to import second hand plant with a capacity from 25 to 30 tonnes per day depending upon the substance range of the paper to be manufactured. The learned DR submitted that for arriving at the installed capacity, the following factors are considered : (i)  The length of the machine (ii)  The speed of the machine. (iii)  The basic weight of the paper to be produced. The speed of the machine was indicated by the DGTD as 500 ft. per minute; that the working h....