TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (7) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the Cenvat credit) of, - (i) the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the said First Schedule), leviable under the Act; (ii) the duty of excise specified in the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, leviable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in relation to the goods falling under sub-heading Nos. 2401.90, 2404.40, 2404.50, 2404.99, 5402.20, 5402.32, 5402.42, 5402.43, 5402.52, 5402.62, 8415.00, 8702.10, 8703.90, 8706.21 and 8706.39 of the said First Schedule; (iii) the additional duty of excise levi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty towards payment of another type of duty is not permissible. He held that the act of the appellant in applying the credit taken for payment of duty under the 1957 Act is impermissible, ordered recovery of the credit availed and imposed the penalty. 4.We have reproduced above the relevant provisions of Section 57AB. The Commissioner has concluded that the use of the word "said" (emphasised in the extract above) leads to the conclusion that credit of duty of one kind cannot be used towards payment of duty of another. He finds support for his conclusion from letter F. No. 345/18/2000-TRU, dated 14-12-2000 of the Ministry of Finance in reply to his letter. Paragraph 2 of the circular of the Board reads as follows :- The issue has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the AED(GSI) Act." 5.It would be instructive to look at the provisions of the relevant rule prior to and subsequent to the period with which we are concerned. The provisions of the rules that we are concerned came into effect from 1st April, 2000. The corresponding provision was earlier contained in the notification issued under Rule 57A. The relevant portion of Notification 21/99, dated 28-2-1999 reads as follows :- Credit of specified duty paid on the inputs may be utilised"2. for payment of duty of excise for any of the purposes mentioned in sub-rule (12) of Rule 57F of the said rules subject to the restrictions mentioned below, namely :- (a) credit of specified duty, in so far as it r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 1975) paid on such inputs." 6.Rules 3(6)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules which came into effect on 1st July, 2001 reads as follows :- Cenvat credit in respect of-"(b) (i) the additional duly of excise under Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978); (ii) the additional duty of excise under Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957); (iii) the National Calamity Contingent Duty under Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 (14 of 2001); and (iv) the addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned"; Chambers Dictionary: "previously or already - mentioned", Webster Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary "aforesaid, above mentioned". 8.The word "said" occurring in the rule under consideration therefore referred to all three kinds of the duties that had been referred to earlier in that rule. It is significant to note that in the earlier and subsequent years the intention not to permit utilisation of one kind of duty towards payment of duty of any other kind has been made crystal clear. It has been done in Notification 21/99 by specifying, separately with regard to each kind of duty that it shall be utilised only towards payment of duty of that kind. From 1st July, 2001, it has been made clear by stating that the duty of each ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rule, especially when such clarification reveals the very object of the rule." 10.There is nothing hidden or obscure in the rule under consideration. It is settled law when the meaning of a statute is plain, seeking only to the construction does not arise. The Supreme Court's judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Anand Maharaj - AIR 1963 SC 946 held that "When a language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of construction of a statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself." Again in Kanailal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan - AIR 1957 SC 907, the Supreme Court held that "If the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not he open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical const....