TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (10) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 395-Cus/76. 2. In case of the two consignments covered by the impugned order-in-appeal No. S/49-1618/79 R, dated 17-12-1979 these were originally assessed at the standard rate of basic Customs duty at 100% plus 20% ad valorem. Subsequently at the refund stage, these were re-assessed under notification No. 395-Cus/76 at the rate of 40% basic customs duty and refund was granted to the importers. Subsequently, less charge demands were confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the subject consignments were not entitled to the benefit of the abovesaid notification No. 395-Cus/76. In case of the other consignments covered by the Order-in-Appeal No. S/491546/79 R, dated 24-11-1979, the goods were originally assessed at the standard rate of basic Customs duty 100% plus 20% ad valorem and the importers' claim for refund of duty on reassessment under Notification No. 395-Cus/76 was rejected. The importers thereafter preferred appeals which were allowed by the Appellate Collector vice the two Orders-in-Appeal mentioned above. The Appellate Collector, inter alia, observed that the Notification No. 395-Cus/76 extended benefit to all parts of ICP engines, irres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r machineries. Since some doubt arose regarding grammatical construction of the language used in the aforesaid two Notifications namely Cus.-350/76 and Cus.-395/76, these were subsequently amended by Notification No. Cus-30/77 and Cus.-29/77 respectively to place the matter beyond all doubt. The present position is that the parts of ICP engines, irrespective of whether or not they are falling under heading 84.06, are enjoying the benefit of concessional duty. (ii) The clause "falling under heading 84.06" appearing in the impugned notification No. 395-Cus/76 qualifies ICP engines and not the parts thereof. There is scope for doubt whether the comma appearing in the Notification between clauses "parts of ICP engines" and "falling under heading 84.06" was intended, advertent or inadvertent. There was no such comma in the corresponding clauses in the Notification No. 350-Cus/76. If the existence of comma in the Notification No. 395/76 has to be attached any significance it will lead to an irresistible conclusion that because of its absence in Notification No. 350-Cus/76 no further amendment to this notification was necessary, although this notification was also amended subsequently ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s imported under similar circumstances was amended from time to time and finally while granting the benefit under amending Notification No. 129-Cus/80 there was an explanatory memorandum attached to the said Notification No. 129-Cus/80 where it has been clearly laid down that the Notification No. 129-Cus/80 seeks to amend the earlier Notification No. 35-Cus/79 so as to bring out the intention clearly that the exemption will apply to all parts regardless whether or not they fall under the same heading as 'article' itself. In this context they also referred to and relied upon the Government of India's orders Nos. 367B and 368B/81 of 1981 issued from Ministry Files Nos. 380/91 and 93/80-Cus. II where the interpretation given by the Appellate Collector regarding applicability of Notification No. 350-Cus /76 has been upheld. They submitted that the present case being exactly identical to the one mentioned above, the ratio of the Government's earlier decision would be equally applicable to the present case. (vii) The importers also relied on the full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lalit Behari v. Sant Lal published in AIR 1974 where it has been stated - "It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arising from grammatical construction of the language used in the impugned notification. 6. The Government observe that while it is not essential to go into the intention behind issuing an exemption Notification, nevertheless, the context cannot be overlooked altogether, specially when the issue seems to have been confused due to unhappy drafting. Here is a case where such parts of ICP engines as are qualified in the exemption Notification used to enjoy the concessional rate of duty before coming into force of the CTA right since 6-8-60 up to 1-8-1976 and are also presently enjoying without any dispute the aforesaid benefit since 9-3-1977. The Government therefore, observe from the relevant records that the idea all along was to continue with the prevalent aforesaid benefit vice the impugned Notification No. 395-Cus./76 even after the coming of the new Tariff, CTA 75. In the above context the Government observe from "Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes" 12th Edition at page 228: "Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment or to some inconvenience or ab....