TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (8) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se levied under a Central enactment. If this question is decided in favour of the assessee and it is held, accepting the contention of the assessee that the expression "duty of excise" in the two Notifications has reference only to the basic duty of excise levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and does not comprise special duty of excise, additional duty of excise or any other kind of duty of excise, a further contention is raised on behalf of the assessee challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982 by which Parliament sought to lay down certain statutory rules for interpretation for arriving at the true meaning and content of the expression "duty of excise" in the Notifications issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and which consequentially had the effect of restricting the meaning and connotation of the expression "duty of excise" in the two notifications in question to basic duty of excise levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The facts giving rise to these appeals and writ petition are few and may be briefly stated as follows. 2. The assessee in these appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring No. 123/74-C.E., dated 1st August, 1974 was issued by the Central Government exempting tyres for motor vehicles from a part of the excise duty leviable thereon and since it is this Notification which inter alia falls for construction, it would be desirable to set it out in full : Notification No. 123/74-C.E., dated 1st August 1974 "In the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts tyres for motor vehicles falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 16 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of fifty-five per cent ad valorem". 5. Subsequently, another Notification bearing No. 27/81-C.E., dated 1st March 1981 was issued by the Central Government in respect of tyres for two-wheeled and three wheeled motor vehicles, power cycles, power cycled rickshaws, tractors and trailors exempting these goods "from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty specified in the corresponding entry in Col. 5" of the Table annexed to this Notification. 6. Now since 1963 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding tyres but the levy of auxiliary excise duty was discontinued with effect from 1977 and we are, therefore, not concerned with it so far as the present appeals and writ petition are concerned. 7. Prior to 9th November 1979 the assessee submitted classification list in terms of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and paid excise duty on the basis that the Notification dated 1st August 1974 granted partial exemption only in respect of basic excise duty levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and did not claim any such exemption in respect of special duty of excise. However, on 9th November 1979 the assessee, while submitting its classification list contended that by reason of the Notification dated 1st August 1974 the assessee was exempted from payment not only in respect of basic excise duty levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 but also in respect of special duty of excise levied under the relevant Finance Acts, because the language used in this notification was not restrictive and it referred generally to `duty of excise' without any qualification and it therefore covered all duties of excise whether levied under the Central Excises and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and excluding from its coverage special duty of excise levied under various Finance Acts, the assessee filed the present writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of this enactment. That is how the present appeals and writ petition have come up for hearing before us. 8. The first question that arises for consideration on these facts is as to what is the true import of the expression `duty of excise' in the notifications dated 1st August 1974 and 1st March 1981. It is only if this expression is held to include duties of excise leviable not only under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 but also under any other enactments that the question would arise whether the Central Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982 is constitutionally invalid. We, therefore, asked the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to confine their arguments only to the first question of interpretation of the expression `duty of excise' in the notifications dated 1st August 1974 and 1st March 1981. 9. Both these notifications, as the opening part shows, are issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and since the definition of `duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of excise duty leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. But, merely because, as a matter of drafting, the Central Government has in some notifications specifically referred to the excise duty in respect of which exemption is granted as `duty of excise' leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, it does not follow that in the absence of such words of specificity, the expression `duty of excise' standing by itself must be read as referring to all duties of excise. It is not uncommon to find out that the legislature sometimes, with a view to making its intention clear beyond doubt, uses language ex abundanti cautela though it may not be strictly necessary and even without it the same intention can be spelt out as a matter of judicial construction and this would be more so in case of subordinate legislation by Executive. The officer drafting a particular piece of subordinate legislation in the Executive Department may employ words with a view to leaving no scope for possible doubt as to its intention or sometimes even for greater completeness, though these words may not add anything to the meaning and scope of the subordinate legislation. Here, in the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay be levied in the future, without considering the nature and extent of such duty and the object and purpose for which such levy may be made and without taking into account the situation which may be prevailing then. It is only when a new duty of excise is levied, whether special duty of excise or auxiliary duty of excise or any other kind of duty of excise, that a question could arise whether any particular article should be exempted from payment of such duty of excise and the Central Government would then have to apply its mind to this question and having regard to the nature and extent of such duty of excise and the object and purpose for which it is levied and the economic situation including supply and demand position then prevailing, decide whether exemption from payment of such excise duty should be granted and if so, to what extent. It would be absurd to suggest that by issuing the notification dated 1st August 1974 the Central Government intended to grant exemption not only in respect of excise duty then prevailing but also in respect of all future duties of excise which may be levied from time to time. 11. We have already pointed out, and this is one of the principal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1), be read as granting exemption only in respect of duty of excise payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Undoubtedly, by reason of sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1979 and similar provision in the other Finance Acts, Rule 8(1) would become applicable empowering the Central Government to grant exemption from payment of special duty of excise, but when the Central Government exercises this power, it would be doing so under Rule 8(1) read with sub-section (4) of Section 32 or other similar provision. The reference to the source of power in such a case would not be just to Rule 8(1), since it does not of its own force and on its own language apply to granting of exemption in respect of special duty of excise, but the reference would have to be to Rule 8(1) read with sub-section (4) of Section 32 or other similar provision. It is significant to note that during all these years, whenever exemption is sought to be granted by the Central Government from payment of special duty of excise or additional duty of excise, the recital of the source of power in the notification granting exemption has invariably been to Rule 8(1) read with the relevant provision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 simpliciter without reference to any other statute and hence the exemption granted under these two notifications must be construed as limited only to the duty of excise payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 12. We may incidentally mention that in the appeals a question of interpretation was also raised in regard to the Notification bearing No. 249/67 dated 8th November 1967 exempting tyres for tractors from "so much of the duty leviable thereon under Item 16 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as is in the excess of 15%". The argument of the respondents in the appeals was that the exemption granted under this notification was not limited to the duty of excise payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 but it also extended to special duty of excise, additional duty of excise and auxiliary duty of excise leviable under other enactments. This argument plainly runs counter to the very language of this notification. It is obvious that the exemption granted under this notification is in respect of "so much of the duty leviable thereon under Item 16 of the First Sch....