TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 63.01 of the Schedule from the whole of the duty of excise specified in that Schedule vide Notification No. 223/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986. The aforesaid notification was again amended by Notification No. 453/86-C.E., dated 20-11-1986. In the earlier Notification dated 3-4-1986, the Government has exempted woven sacks of polymers of ethylene or propylene or a combination thereof from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon but by the latter Notification dated 20-11-1986 the exemption was made applicable if only such woven sacks of polymers of ethylene or propylene or as the case may be, a combination thereof, are manufactured on flat knitting looms. Thereafter the Central Government again issued a Notification No. 3/87-C.E., dated 7-1-1987 further amending Notifications dated 3-4-1986 and 20-11-1986, wherein it was provided that woven sacks of polymers of ethylene or propylene or a combination thereof were exempted falling under Heading No. 46.01 or 63.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, which is specified in the said Schedule, but the exemption was applicable only if the aforesaid sacks were not ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kwell and therefore they are HDPE sacks woven on circular looms. As such, the benefit of exemption under the Notification dated 3-4-1986 by the Government of India as amended is not available to the petitioners. Actually the respondents are wrongly interpreting the notification because the notification nowhere says that the HDPE woven sacks manufactured from the fabrics woven on circular looms are not exempted from the duty. Actually only those HDPE sacks which are manufactured on circular looms are not exempt from duty. All other HDPE sacks manufactured by any other process are exempt from the excise duty. The petitioners undisputedly do not manufacture the HDPE sacks on circular looms but are only stitching the HDPE sacks by machines from the fabric woven on circular looms. Hence the authorities had no right to add any word to the taxing notification in accordance with the well settled principles of interpretation of a taxing statute. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the show cause notice dated 18-1-1989 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent No. 5 be quashed and the respondents be commanded to release the goods seized by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by seizure memo da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been raised. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri A.M. Mathur has strenuously argued that the interpretation of the tax notification has to be made in accordance with its language. The authorities have got no right to add or subtract any word in the notification. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal and of the various High Courts. Let us first look at the judgments cited by Shri Mathur. A Special Bench of the CEGAT at New Delhi in the case of Basf India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1989 (40) E.L.T. 363 has held that the exemption notification has to be read as it is. Neither any word in it is to be ignored nor intention of the legislature is to be searched. The Madras High Court in the case of P.M. Abdul Latif and Others v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise -1985 (22) E.L.T. 758 has also taken the same view that benefit under the notification, if available, has to be granted to the person entitled to such benefit and the notification has to be acted upon in accordance with the wordings of the notification. The Karnataka High Court in India Sugars and Refineries Ltd., H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 4 for stitching, printing and baling of HDPE sacks on job charges basis out of HDPE fabrics delivered by Raj Packwell Limited, Pithampur. This fact is also clear form the letter dated 13-5-1988 placing the order with Noticee No. 5 which clearly says that according to the terms and conditions stipulated in the order form the petitioners had to do a job work at the rate of 60 p. per bag which includes the cost of labour, yarn, printing, packing, baling and delivering the bags to their works and octroi charges. It is also made clear that if there be any excise charge the principals shall not pay the same to the noticee No. 6. It is also undisputed that the petitioner No. 1 M/s. Shubham Tailors only stitches the fabric and thereafter it is printed by petitioner No. 2 M/s. Plasto Craft and thereafter they are packed and despatched to the principals. As such the petitioners are only doing the job work and not manufacturing the bags on their own. 8. The definition of "manufacture" and "manufacturer" is contained in S. 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which is as under : "(f) 'manufacture' includes any process - (i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufa....