2018 (7) TMI 850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exemption under notification No.30/2004-CE on other products. With effect from 11.05.2008, they opted to clear all the goods claiming exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE. At the time of exemption, appellants had reversed cenvat credit of Rs. 1,88,337/- on inputs held in stock as on 11.05.2008. After reversal of such credit, appellants still had a balance credit of Rs. 2,82,375/- in the cenvat credit account. Department took the view that even this cenvat credit balance amount should lapse in view of the provisions of Rule 11 (3) (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). Accordingly, a show cause notice dt. 15.05.2009 was issued to the appellants proposing that the said balance credit should be treated as lapsed and also proposing impo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... word 'or‛ appearing in between clause (i) and clause (ii) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of CCR and has come to a clear finding that in all the situations surplus credit available with the assessee will be required to be lapsed. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 The core issue that comes up for decision is whether the transitional provisions contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 will be applicable to both sub-rules 3 (i) and 3 (ii). For better understanding, the relevant provisions relating to manufacturers are reproduced as under : "RULE 11. Transitional provision. - .... .... ..... (3) A manufacturer or producer of a final product shall be required to pay an amount equivalent to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 'or‛ as 'and‛, only if they find from the context that the wrong word must have been used. [Ranchhoddas Atmaram v. UOI, AIR 1961 SC 935; Firoj Farukee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2141] . However, in respect of the sub-rule 3 (i) and sub-rule 3 (ii) ibid, there should not be any such confusion or doubt, since those two sub-rules are separated not by just a particle 'or‛ but also by a semicolon (;), thus creating an additional wall for conveying mutual exclusivity between the two sub rules. There is also no basis for suggesting that the use of 'or‛ between these sub-rules conveys the meaning 'or both‛. For example, to be able to impose both a fine and a penalty, one would need to add 'or both‛ to ....