Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

44. It is further contention on behalf of the department that the budget Explanatory note of 2000-01 clearly clarified that intravenous fluids exempted under Notification No. 36/2000 are those meant to be used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment. Attention is drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) ELT 741 (SC), while contending that a notification is to be treated as if it is enacted in the Act itself.

56. Undoubtedly, law on the point that the exemption notification has to be understood on the basis of the grammatical meaning of the words used in such notification unless context otherwise requires is well settled. It is well settled law that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is to be governed wholly by the language used in a notification. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of the exemption, it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. If such intention can be gathered from the construction of the words of the notification or by necessary implication therefrom, the matter could be different. What the law makers intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication. It should not be forgotten that primacy is to be given to the words in which the intention of the law-giver has been expressed. The decisions of the Apex Court in Hemraj Gordhandas Vs. H.H. Dave Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs reported in 1978 (2) ELT 350 and Collector of Central Excise Vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) ELT 741 are very clear in this regard.

57. In Parle Exports (P) Ltd. (supra), it was held thus:-

The expressions in the Schedule and in the notification for exemption should be understood by the language employed therein bearing in mind the context in which the expressions occur. The words used in the provision, imposing taxes or granting exemption should be understood in the same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them. It is, however, necessary to bear in mind certain principles. The notification in this case was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and should be read along with the Act. The notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant products. When a notification is issued in accordance with power conferred by the statute, it has statutory force and validity and, therefore, the exemption under the notification is, as if it were contained in the Act itself. So in this connection the observations of this Court in Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India 1978 (2) ELT (J311) (SC) (1962 Supp. 3 SCR 481). See also Kailash Nath vs. State of U.P. (Air 1957 SC 790). 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 Others v. Frederick Wilkinson [1978 (3JA.C. 355 at 370] 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 page 369 of the report that in a taxing Act provisions establishing 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 avoided.