Commnr. of Central
Excise, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog [2008] INSC 1666 (30
September 2008)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3269 OF 2003 Commissioner of Central Excise,
Jaipur ...Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Mewar Bartan Nirmal Udyog ...Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1269/2005, 3688/2005, 3636/2006, 1477/2007, 2725/2007,
383/2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.5988/2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6398/2007)
ORDER In C.A.No.3269/2003:
The short controversy
which arises for determination in this Civil Appeal is: Whether the
respondent-assessee was entitled to claim benefit of exemption Notification
No.3/2001-CE, dated 1.3.2001? The assessee claims exemption under S.No.200 of
the said Notification which claim was denied by the Department on the ground
that trimmed or untrimmed circles of brass cannot fall under S.No.200 but they
fall under S.No.201 where rate of duty is Rs.3500 PMT. It may be stated that if
the product in question falls under S.No.200, then the rate of duty is nil. This
is the narrow controversy in the present case.
To resolve this
dispute, we quote hereinbelow relevant extract of Notification No.3/2001-CE,
dated 1.3.2001.
1 S.No. Chapter or
Description of goods Rate under Rate under Condition No. heading No. the First
the Second or sub- Schedule Schedule heading No. 200 74.09 All goods other than
Nil - 32 trimmed or untrimmed If such goods are not sheets of circles of
copper, produced or intended for use in the manufactured by a manufacture of
utensils or manufacturer who handicrafts produces or manufactures copper from
copper ore or copper concentrate.
201 74.09 Trimmed or
untrimmed Rs.3500 - 33 sheets of circles of copper, per metric intended for use
in the tonne If,- manufacture of (a) no credit of duty handicrafts or utensils
paid on inputs under rule 57AB or rule 57AK of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
has been taken;
(b) the entire amount
of duty is paid in cash or through account-current; and (c) such goods are not
produced or manufactured by a manufacturer who produces or manufactures copper
from copper ore or copper concentrate:
Provided that the
duty shall not be payable by a manufacturer who produces or manufactures
trimmed sheets or circles from duty paid untrimmed sheets or circles.
In this case it is
not disputed by the Department before the Tribunal that the circles
manufactured by the assessee are from brass. According to the Department, brass
is an alloy of copper/zinc and, consequently, trimmed or untrimmed circles of
brass used in the manufacture of utensils would also fall in the Entry at
S.No.201 of the Notification and, therefore, the assessee was liable to pay
duty on such goods at the rate of Rs.3500 PMT. We find no infirmity in the
impugned order of the Tribunal. On comparing the two Entries, it is clear that
if the goods in question are goods other than trimmed or untrimmed circles of
copper, intended for use in the manufacture of utensils, then what is attracted
is the nil rate of duty under Entry at S.No.200. In this case, we are concerned
with interpretation of Entries in the Notification. The exemption Notification
covers goods which squarely falls under Chapter Heading 74.09. In fact, both
S.No.200 and S.No.201 of the Notification deal with Chapter Heading 74.09.
However, while giving exemption, a dichotomy is created between
trimmed/untrimmed sheets of copper which attracts duty at the rate of Rs.3500
PMT on one hand and, on the other, all goods other than trimmed/untrimmed
circles of copper intended for use in the manufacture of utensils which attract
nil rate of duty. In this case, circles manufactured by the assessee are made
from brass. Therefore, in our view, S.No.200 would apply and the assessee would
be entitled to claim nil rate of duty under the said Notification.
We may also point out
at this stage that it is well settled position in law that exemption
Notification has to be read strictly. A notification of exemption has to be
interpreted in terms of its language. Where the language is plain and clear,
effect must be given to it. While interpreting the exemption notification, one
cannot go by rules of interpretation applicable to cases of classification
under the Tariff. Tariff items in certain cases are required to be interpreted
in cases of classification disputes in terms of HSN, which is the basis of the
Tariff. In this case, we are not concerned with interpretation of Tariff. In
fact, as stated above, the product in question falls under Chapter Heading
74.09. It is the dichotomy which is introduced by the exemption Notification
which needs to be interpreted. Items made from copper attract duty at the rate
of Rs.3500 PMT whereas circles made from brass attract nil rate of duty. As
stated above, in this case, the Department has not disputed the fact that the
circles were manufactured by the assessee from brass. This is expressly
recorded in the findings given by the Tribunal.
In the circumstances,
we find no infirmity in the impugned decision.
Consequently, the
Civil Appeal filed by the Department stands dismissed, with no order as to
costs.
In
C.A.Nos.1269/2005,3688/2005,3636/2006,1477/2007,2725/2007, 383/2008 and S.L.P.
(C) No.6398/2007:
Leave granted in
S.L.P.(C) No.6398/2007.
Delay condoned in
C.A.No.3636/2006.
In view of the order
passed today in C.A.No.3269/2003, these appeals are dismissed, with no order as
to costs.
...................J.
(S.H. KAPADIA)
...................J.
(B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)
New
Delhi,
September
30, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2