TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able Goods) Rules, 2000. The said rule provides for determination of assessable value at 110% of the cost of production. During the disputed period, the appellants had computed 110% of the cost of production, based on the estimated cost for the month and paid the duty amount at the time of removal of Clinkers from the factory. At the end of every month, the appellants used to compare the value on which the duty amount has already been paid on Clinkers with the final assessable value thereon, determined based on CAS-4. If on such comparison, any differential duty liability arose, then the appellants used to pay the same along with interest. In respect of the Clinkers cleared to the independent buyers, the valuation was done by the appellants under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules of 2000. However, such modus operandi adopted by the appellants in determination of assessable value by taking re-course to the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2000 was disputed by the department, and it was contended that the value should have been considered in terms of Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of the Rules of 2000. On the basis of such understanding, the department had issued the show cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if, a part of the excisable goods is sold to the independent buyer(s). In other words, the distinctive features, as a result of such amendment in the statute, were that for the period prior to 01.12.2013, the entire excisable goods were required to be used for captive consumption, for manufacture of the other articles; and that, for the period after 01.12.2013, the manufacturer was permitted to sell a part of the manufactured excisable goods and to use the remaining part, for captive consumption, in order to manufacture the further excisable goods. 6. The appellants have claimed that their case is governed under the amended provisions of Rule 8 ibid, since the amendment took place in Rule 8 ibid, is clarificatory in nature and thus, should be given the effect retrospectively. We find that the amendment made by Notification dated 22.11.2013 (supra) in Rule 8 ibid was by way of substitution. The meaning assigned for the phrase 'substitution' in various dictionaries have been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Government of India vs. Indian Tobacco Association - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.), as under: "15. The word "substitute" ordinarily would mean "to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poses. As per the said amended provisions, so long as the transactions are based upon purely commercial consideration, where buyer and the seller have no relationship with each other, and price is the sole consideration for sale, the transaction would fall under the purview of Section 4(1)(a) ibid, for consideration as transaction value for the purpose of duty assessment. 7.3 Deriving the concept of transaction value contained in Section 4 ibid, the appellants had determined the value, at which clinkers would be removed from the factory to the independent buyers and such value declared by the appellants was also accepted by the department as the transaction value. However, in respect of the clearance of clinkers made to the appellants' own grinding units, the department had changed the stand and disputed that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules of 2000, alone would be applicable and the provisions of Rule 8 ibid should not be reckoned to, for the purpose of determining the value of clearances made for captive consumption by such other grinding units. We also accept the fact that such interpretation placed by the department is correct, if one reads the provisions of the un-amen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pre-existing text is one of the known and well-recognised practices employed in legislative drafting. 'Substitution' has to be distinguished from 'supersession' or a mere repeal of an existing provision. 25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, ibid, p. 565). If any authority is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P., State of Rajasthan v. MangilalPindwal, Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co. and A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. S. Michael. In West U.P. Sugar Mills Association case a three-Judges Bench of this Court held that the State Government by substituting the new rule in place of the old one never intended to keep alive the old rule. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centering 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 MangilalPindwal case this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute w....