Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commr. Of C. Ex. vs Jai Hanuman Dyg. And Ptg. Mills Pvt. Ltd. on 12 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(88)ELT69(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER P.K. Desai, Member (J)
1. The Department seeks reference to the High Court against the Order No. 5/CB/95-WRB, dated 11-10-1995, passed by this Bench.
2. The reference sought for is on the validity of the interpretation giving by the Bench, in relation to the pre-amended provisions of Additional duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.
3. Heard Shri K.M. Mondal, the Ld. SDR.
4. Considering the submissions, it has to be observed that in the year 1994, Section 3(3) of the said Act has been amended to read thus :
"The provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and the rules made thereunder including those relating to refund and exemptions from duty, offence and penalty shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the Additional Duties as they apply in relation to levy and collection of the duties of Excise on the goods specified in Sub-section (1)".
Earlier the said provisions read thus:
"The provisions of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and the rules made thereunder including those relating to refund and exemption from duty shall so for as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the additional duties, as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of the duties of Excise on the goods specified in Sub-section (1)".
The distinction is obvious and when the law has been amended subsequently and when the aims and objects do not reflect that amendment as carried out is only by way of clarification, it has to be held that no provisions for confiscation and imposition of penalty in relation to the demands under Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance ) Act, 1957 existed. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills v. Union of India - 1991 (4) Delhi Lawyers 75, When the law has also been subsequently amended there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court.
5. Even considering the aspect on merits there does not appear any issue of law existing requiring appropriate decision by the High Court. The Reference application is therefore rejected.