Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Cce vs Modi Rubber Ltd. on 27 April, 2005
8.4 Coming back to the expression "in relation to we note that this expression has been similarly used in the definition of "input" also vide Rule 2(k). According to this definition, "input" means goods (with certain exceptions) used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not. The expression was used in the same manner under the erstwhile provisions (like Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944) also and the same has been considered and construed by this Tribunal in a large number of cases. There was a time when lubricating oils and greases, used in plant and machinery (capital goods), were not specified as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the CER 1944 nor as inputs under Rule 57A. A doubt arose as to whether they should be considered as inputs or capital goods for MODVAT credit and this was cleared by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal [vide CCE, Meerut v. Modi Rubber Limited and Ors. ] which held that such lubricants were to be considered as inputs used in relation to the manufacture of final products. This view was taken after noting that lubrication of machinery was essential for smooth conduct of the manufacturing activity. The lubricants did not enter into the process of manufacture and therefore there was no chance of their being contained in the final product. Nevertheless, it was found, they aided the manufacturing activity by lubricating the capital goods. There are also cases in which even effluent treatment chemicals used by certain, industries were held to be inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57A. These chemicals were also held to have been used in relation to the manufacture of final products. Whenever any goods (other than capital goods) used by a manufacturer in his factory was found to have at least a remote relation to the manufacture of final product, it was held to be input used in relation to such manufacture. The expression "indirectly" employed in the definition was understood as indicative such relation. The expression "in relation to" used in the definition of "input service" has to be understood in the same at sense as it has in the definition of "input". When it has to be determined whether a given service has been used, directly or indirectly, in relation to the clearance of final products from the place of removal, the test is whether the service has at least remotely aided the clearance of the final products or whether the clearance of the final products would have been facile in the absence of the service. Outward transportation of final products from the place of removal, being an activity posterior to the clearance of the goods, in the present case, cannot pass the test.
Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors., Etc on 12 February, 1988
8.8 "In relation to" has been used as an adverbial phrase in the definition of "input service" (as well as in the definition of "input") whereas, under Section 3(1) and 4(1) of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1986, considered by the Apex Court in Doypack Systems case, it was used as an adjectival phrase. The court, in the said case, found that the above provisions of law used the phrases "in relation to", "'pertaining to" and "relating to" as equivalent expressions. These expressions, found in deeming provisions, were also held to have been used in an expansive sense. The learned Senior Advocate has urged us to follow this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and impart expansive meaning to the phrase "in relation to" used in Rule 2(1)(ii). This argument is also not persuasive for more than one reason, viz. (a) an expression used in a definition (which may be expansive or restrictive depending on the requirements of the scheme of the statute) cannot have the same meaning as it has when used in a deeming provision (which is per se expansive); (b) an adjectival phrase and an adverbial one are not interchangeable equivalents; (c) the General Clauses Act, 1897, has interchangeably used the phrases "in relation to" and "as respects" each intended to restrict the scope of the meaning of the word defined vide definitions of "Central Government" [Section 3(8)] and "State Government" [Section 3(60)]:
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 65 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Polestar Electronic(P) Ltd vs Addl. Commissioner, Sales Tax Delhi on 20 February, 1978
Therefore, the expression "in relation to" which can be found in various grammatical situations in different legislative texts and contexts will have to be construed in a manner consistent with the scheme of the law. One has got to understand the definitions under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules by keeping in mind the Cenvat credit scheme as a whole. Hence, in our view, there is no point in saying that the main part of the definition of "input service" has to be interpreted without reference to the inclusive part of the definition. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Polestar Electronic case (supra) are apposite to this context:
M/S Black Diamond Beverages & Anr vs The Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 16 September, 1997
8.9 In the case of Black Diamond Beverages (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel, the apex court was examining the definition of "sale price" under Section 2(d) of the W.B. Sales Tax Act 1954. The court held that "sale price" in the main part of the provision should be given its ordinary, popular or natural meaning, unaffected by the inclusive part of the provision. We note that the main part of the above definition used plain words reflecting the popular meaning of sale price. Their lordships held that the inclusive part of the definition could not prevent the main provision from receiving its natural or popular meaning. In our view, this ruling is not applicable where the main provision defines a new term (like "input service") which has no popular meaning and might require external aid for its interpretation.