TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re being decided by this common order. 4. Facts in short are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of M.M. Yarn falling under Chapter 55 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short, 'the Act of 1985'). Petitioner had filed various rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 on the ground that it had used duty paid inputs in the manufacture of M.M. Yarn which was cleared for export on payment of duty; hence, the duty paid by it on inputs as well as finished goods is sought to be refunded under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 read with Section 118(2)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, 'the Act of 1944'). The petitioner had also filed requisite combined declaration, as per Notification No. 21/2004-Central Excise (N.T.). The adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claims on the ground that Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 does not permit grant of rebate of duty paid on exported finished goods simultaneously with the rebate of duty paid on inputs. Appeals preferred against the said orders were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur and the orders were affirmed. Aggrieved thereby, revision applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference is to excisable goods. Rule 19(1) provides that any excisable goods may be exported without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, as may be approved by the Commissioner. Rule 19(2) provides that any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, for use in the manufacture or processing of goods which are exported, as may be approved by the Commissioner. Further, Rule 19(3) provides that the export under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified by notification by the Board. We find that Rule 19(1) clearly provides that any excisable goods can be exported without payment of duty from the factory of producer, however, it does not provide for rebate of duty paid on the materials used in manufacture or processing of such goods. The only benefit available under Rule 19(1) is rebate of duty paid on finished goods; such goods can be exported without payment of duty from the factory of producer. Thus, the benefit available under Rule 19 is only on the fini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ish a ground to the landlord to sue his tenant without having to obtain the previous permission of the District Magistrate. The construction of cl. (c) placed by the High Court is, therefore, not correct." 10. Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2026 = (2005) 5 SCC 420, in which the Apex Court has considered the word "or" used in between the words "established" and "incorporated" in Sections 2(f), 22 and 23 of the UGC Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the context in which the word "or" has been used, has laid down that he word "or" is normally disjunctive and "and" is normally conjunctive but at times, they are read vice versa to give effect to the manifest intentions of the Legislature, as disclosed from the context. If literal reading of the word produces an unintelligible or absurd result "and" may be read for "or" and "or" may be read for "and". Following is the relevant discussion made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court :- "40.....The word "or" is normally disjunctive and "and" is normally conjunctive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in this regard. Thus, it has to be construed harmoniously with the Rule that rebate of duty is available either on finished goods or the inputs, not on both. When we consider Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, we find that it deals with the rebate of whole of the duty paid on 'materials' i.e. inputs used in the manufacture or processing of export goods. It nowhere lays that on finished goods also, rebate can be claimed. Thus, issuance of two difference notifications makes it clear that both the benefits are not available to be claimed simultaneously, and the words "whole of the duty" used in the notification has to be understood in the context of materials/inputs used in the manufacture or processing of export/inputs used in the manufacture or processing of export goods, whereas Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) has to be understood with respect to the manufactured/finished goods. Issuance of two separate notifications also indicates that the benefit on both is not available at the same time. Merely by the fact that Form ARE-2 is providing either to claim the rebate on finished goods or on inputs used in manufacture of such goods, it cannot be culled out t....