TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion which came into force with effect from 1-4-1997. In terms of the said notification exemption was granted from payment of additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act to those who had been issued a Duty Entitlement Pass Book by the Licensing Authority. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (2) of the said notification states : "(iv) The said Duty Entitlement Pass Book shall be valid for twelve months from the date of issue, for import and export only, at the port of registration which shall be one of the sea ports at Mumbai, Calcutta, Cochin, Kandla, Mangalore, Marmgoa, Chennai Nhava Sheva, Paradeep, Tuticorin and Visakhapatnam, or any of the airports at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Calcutta, Coimbatore, Delhi, Jaipur, Varanasi, Srinagar, Trivendrum, Hyderabad and Chennai or any of the Inland Container Depots at Bangalore, Coimbatore, Delhi, Gauhati, Kanpur, Pimpri (Pune), Pitampur (Indore), Moradabad, Ludhiana and Hyderabad. Provided that the Commissioner of Customs may by special order and subject to such conditions as may be specified by him, permit imports and exports from any other sea port, airport, inland ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Appellant(s), would submit that the notifications dated 7-4-1997 and 27-11-1997 providing for exemption from payment of additional custom duty must be strictly construed. Relying on Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mahaan Dairies [(2004) 11 SCC 798], the learned Counsel would contend that a subordinate legislation containing exemption from payment of duty would only have a prospective operation. 8.Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, would urge that by reason of the Import Policy for the period 1997-2002, the Union of India only sought to simplify the procedure for grant of exemption basing the same on the quality of goods exported on freight on board and as Guntur Railway Station had all along been an Inland Container Depot; there was no reason as to why the said place should have been excluded from the purview of the aforementioned notification. 9.The learned Counsel would contend that having regard to the representation made by the Respondent-Association, the Ministry of Commerce, Director General of Foreign Trade ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught to be removed thereby. 17.There cannot furthermore be any doubt whatsoever that when a person is held to be eligible to obtain the benefits of an exemption notification, the same should be liberally construed. 18.The notification dated 7-4-1997 is an exemption notification whereby and whereunder the Export and Import Policy of the Union of India was implemented. Exemption from payment of additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, was to be granted to an exporter, provided he possessed a Duty Entitlement Pass Book which was valid at the ports of registration specified therein. 19.The proviso appended to sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of the notification dated 7-4-1997 empowers the Commissioner of Customs to permit imports and exports from any other seaport, airport, inland container depot or through a land Customs station. 20.The Commissioner of Customs has advisedly not exercised its jurisdiction under the proviso appended to sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of notification dated 7-4-1997. By reason of the notification dated 27-11-1997, the only amendment made was the words "Tuticorin and Vishakhapatnam" were substituted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bers of the Respondent-Association only with prospective effect, it could have said so explicitly. Such a benefit could also have been extended by taking recourse to the proviso appended to sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of the notification dated 7-4-1997. It may, therefore, be safely concluded that by reason of the amended notification, the Central Government only intended to rectify a mistake and, thus, the same will have retrospective effect and retroactive operation. 24.In Ramkanali Colliery of BCCL v. Workmen by Secy., Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and Another [(2001) 4 SCC 236], a Division Bench of this Court observed : "…What we are concerned with in the present case is the effect of the expression "substituted" used in the context of deletion of sub-sections of Section 14, as was originally enacted. In Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India, this Court stated that it is a matter of legislative practice to provide while enacting an amending law, that an existing provision shall be deleted and a new provision substituted. If there is both repeal and introduction of another provision in place thereof by a single exercise, the expression "substituted" is used. Such de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regard to the totality of the circumstances centring around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar case a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphasized the distinction between 'supersession' of a rule arid 'substitution' of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps : first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place." 26.We are not oblivious of the fact that in certain situations, the Court having regard to the purport and object sought to be achieved by the legislature may construe the word "substitution" as an "amendment" having a prospective effect but such a question does not arise in the instant case. 27.There is another aspect of the matter which may not be lost sight of. Where a statute is passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is as if it were contained in the Act itself. See in this connection the observations of this Court in Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India. See also Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. The principle is well settled that when two views of a notification are possible, it should be construed in favour of the subject as notification is part of a fiscal enactment. But in this connection, it is well to remember the observations of the Judicial Committee in Coroline M. Armytage v. Frederick Wilkinson that it is only, however, in the event of there being a real difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of a particular enactment that the question of strictness or of liberality of construction arises. The Judicial Committee reiterated in the said decision at p. 369 of the report that in a taxing Act provisions establishing (sic enacting) an exception to the general rule of taxation are to be construed strictly against those who invoke its benefit. While interpreting an exemption clause, liberal interpretation should be imparted to the language thereof, provided no violence is done to the language employed. It must, however, be borne in mind that absurd results of construction should be av....