//
you're reading...
legal issues

Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The object of providing concessional rate of duty, on the kerosene used for illuminating oil burning lamps, was to provide some relief to those economically backward sections of society who use kerosene for illumination and other domestic purposes and, therefore, the benefit of concessional rate of duty was available only on the kerosene cleared by the assessee to the Public Distribution System. [Para 13] [366-C] 2. In the light of the object and context of the notifications, it becomes abundantly clear that the word “ordinarily” used in the Notifications implies that the kerosene must be ordinarily used for illumination purposes, and it would be immaterial if the kerosene is also used for other domestic purposes. [Para 16] [367-B] Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. J.D. Orgochem Ltd. (2008) 16 SCC 576; Viswa and Co. vs. The State of Gujarat (1966) 17 S.T.C. 581 – referred to. 3. From the perusal of the two Notifications, it is plain that the benefit of concessional rate of duty extends only to that variety of kerosene that: (i) has a smoke point of 18mm or more, and (ii) is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps. It is manifest that these two conditions are conjunctive and, therefore, the twin conditions need to be satisfied in order to avail of the concessional rate of duty. In the instant case, the fact that the assessee cleared kerosene manufactured by it to industrial consumers would entail that the assessee cannot claim the benefit of Notifications No. 5/98-CE and 5/99-CE. [Para 17] [367-C-D] Union of India and Anr. vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 290; State of A.P. vs. V. Sarma Rao and Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 159 – relied on. Union of India and Ors. vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah (1996) 6 SCC 721 – referred to. Case Law Reference: (2008) 16 SCC 576 Referred to Para 11 (1966) 17 S.T.C. 581 Referred to. Para 11 (2010) 4 SCC 290 Relied on. Para 14 (1996) 6 SCC 721 Referred to. Para 14 (2007) 2 SCC 159 Relied on. Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7041-7043 of 2002. From the Judgment & Order dated 21.01.2002 of the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/682-684/2001-C. Alok Yadav, M.P. Devanath for the Appellant. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ron Bastian, Anil Katiyar for the Respondent.

IndianOil tanker at Chhatrapati Shivaji Intern...

Image via Wikipedia

 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7041-7043 OF 2002

M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION -- APPELLANT
LTD.

 VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL -- RESPONDENT
EXCISE, VADODARA

 JUDGMENT

D.K. JAIN, J.:

1. These civil appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944

 (for short "the Act) are directed against the order dated 21st January 2002

 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for

 short "the Tribunal), as it then existed, whereby it dismissed the appeal

 filed by the appellant, denying it the benefit of concessional rate of

 Excise duty under Notifications No. 5/98-CE and 5/99-CE.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for the adjudication of

 these appeals, may be stated thus:

 1
 The appellant viz. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, a public sector

undertaking, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is manufacturer of

petroleum products, including "superior kerosene" classified under Chapter

sub-heading 2710.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short "the

Tariff Act").

3. By virtue of Notification No. 5/98-CE dated 2nd June 1998 certain

 excisable goods were brought under General Exemption No. 66, and a

 certain category of kerosene products were made subject to concessional

 rate of duty. It would be expedient to extract the relevant portions of the

 said notification:

 "S. Chapter or Description of goods Rate Conditions
 No. heading No.
 or sub-
 heading No.

 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
 27. 27 Kerosene, that is to say, 10% --
 any hydro-carbon oil
 (excluding mineral colza
 oil and white spirit)
 which has a smoke point
 of 18mm or more
 (determined in the
 apparatus known as
 smoke point lamp in the
 manner included in the
 Bureau of Indian
 Standards Specification
 ISI: 1448 (p.31)-1968 as
 in force for the time
 being) and is ordinarily

 2
 used as an illuminant in
 oil burning lamps"

4. Thereafter, vide Notification No. 5/99 dated 28th February 1999, the

rate of excise duty on the kerosene products envisaged under Notification

No. 5/98-CE, was reduced to 8%. The relevant portion of the said

notification reads as follows:

 "S. Chapter or Description of goods Rate Conditions
 No heading No.
 or sub-
 heading No.
 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
 28. 27 Kerosene, that is to say, 8% --
 any hydro-carbon oil
 (excluding mineral colza
 oil and white spirit)
 which has a smoke point
 of 18mm or more
 (determined in the
 apparatus known as
 smoke point lamp in the
 manner included in the
 Bureau of Indian
 Standards Specification
 ISI: 1448 (p.31)-1968 as
 in force for the time
 being) and is ordinarily
 used as an illuminant in
 oil burning lamps"

5. The assessee claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under

Notification No. 5/98-CE for their kerosene products in their declaration

 3
effective from 2nd June 1998. Subsequently, in their declarations effective

from 28th February 1999 and 4th August 1999 respectively, they claimed

benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 5/99. It is

pertinent to note that during the period 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the tariff

rate corresponding to Chapter sub-heading 2710.90 was 15% and 16%

respectively.

6. The Excise department issued three show cause notices to the

assessee, dated 31st March 1999, 12th July 1999 and 19th November 1999, for

the periods September, 1998 to February 1999, March to April 1999 and

May to September 1999, respectively; proposing to recover the amounts of

`86,089/-, `1,46,731/- and `47,012/- respectively for the said periods.

7. On 18th April 2000, the Assistant Commissioner passed a common

order in respect of the said three show cause notices, whereby he confirmed

the demand of `2,79,832/- under Section 11A of the Act, holding that the

benefit of concessional rate of duty under the said Notifications cannot be

extended to kerosene products sold and used for industrial purposes. The

Assistant Commissioner also imposed a penalty of `10,000/- under Rule

173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed by order dated 29th

 4
November 2000. The penalty was, however, deleted by the Commissioner

(Appeals).

9. The assessee, thereafter, carried the matter in appeal before the

Tribunal. As afore-noted, the Tribunal has, vide the impugned order,

dismissed the appeal of the assessee, inter alia, holding that:

 "8. The Notifications were, obviously, meant to be beneficial to
 the economically backward masses of people in our country
 insofar as the kerosene-related provisions were concerned. The
 Notifications provided concessional rates of duty in respect of
 kerosene which was ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning
 lamps... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
 .... .... ..
 In other words, the stock was ordinarily used as illuminant in
 oil burning lamps and the benefit of the notifications was
 rightly extended to the kerosene cleared through the PDS to
 domestic consumers... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... ....
 .... .... .... .... .... .... ..
 9. The subject matter of this case is the stock of kerosene which
 the appellants cleared to industrial users during the period of
 dispute, on payment of duty at the concessional rates under the
 notifications. The appellants have estimated such clearances at
 about 1% of their total production of kerosene of the said
 period. The appellants have no case that any part of the said
 stock was used as illuminant in oil burning lamps. They have
 not contested the fact that the entire quantity was used for
 industrial purposes. It follows that the said stock of kerosene
 did not satisfy the description ordinarily used as an illuminant
 in oil burning lamps and therefore did not attract the benefit of
 the notifications. The fact that about 99% of the total
 production of kerosene was ordinarily used as illuminant in oil
 burning lamps is not determinative of the question whether the
 remaining 1% (which was cleared to industrial users) was
 ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps. Whether the
 kerosene cleared to industrial users was suitable for use in oil

 5
 burning lamps as illuminant is also not relevant to the said
 question.... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ......
 We are also not impressed by the learned DR's argument that
 the word "ordinarily" used in the notifications should be
 understood in the same way as that word used under Section 4
 of the CE Act."

10. Hence, the present appeals.

11. Mr. Alok Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee,

 assailed the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the

 conditions mentioned in the notifications relate only to the quality of

 the kerosene, which should be such that it is capable of illumination,

 and the said conditions do not relate to the end-user of the kerosene.

 Therefore, it is immaterial for the purposes of the said notifications

 that the kerosene was cleared to industrial users, as long as the said

 kerosene was capable of illumination in oil burning lamps.

 Commending us to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of

 Customs, Mumbai Vs. J.D. Orgochem Ltd.1and the decision of the

 Gujarat High Court in Viswa & Co. Vs. The State of Gujarat2, learned

 counsel contended that the word "ordinarily" used in the notifications

 means "in the majority of cases, but not invariably", and therefore, the

 fact that 1% of the kerosene manufactured by the assessee was cleared

 to industrial users does not change the fact that most of the kerosene
1
 (2008) 16 SCC 576
2
 [1966] 17 S.T.C. 581

 6
 manufactured by the assessee was cleared to the Public Distribution

 System (for short "PDS").

12. Per contra, Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned additional Solicitor General,

 while supporting the impugned judgment, strenuously urged that the

 twin conditions contemplated in the notifications should be fulfilled

 for attracting the concessional rate of duty, and therefore, the assessee

 could not claim the benefit of the said notifications as kerosene was

 supplied to industrial consumers.

13. It is manifest that the object of providing concessional rate of duty on

 kerosene used for illuminating burning oil lamps was to provide some

 relief to those economically backward sections of society who use

 kerosene for illumination and other domestic purposes, and therefore,

 the benefit of concessional rate of duty was available only on the

 kerosene cleared by the assessee to the PDS.

14. In relation to the import of the expression "ordinarily" used in the said

 notifications, it would be instructive to refer to the observations made

 by this Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan

 & Ors.3, wherein it was held that:-

3
 (2010) 4 SCC 290

 7
 "The word "ordinarily" must be given its ordinary meaning.
 While construing the word the Court must not be oblivious of
 the context in which it has been used." (See also: Union of
 India & Ors. Vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah4).

15. Similarly, in State of A.P. Vs. V. Sarma Rao & Ors.5, this Court held

 that:-

 "The expression "ordinarily" may mean "normally", as has been held
 by this Court in Kailash Chandra v. Union of India6 and Krishan
 Gopal v. Prakashchandra7 but, the said expression must be
 understood in the context in which it has been used."

16. Therefore, in light of the object and context of the notifications, it

 becomes abundantly clear that the word "ordinarily" implies that the

 kerosene must be ordinarily used for illumination purposes, and it

 would be immaterial if the kerosene is also used for other domestic

 purposes.

17. From a bare perusal of the two notifications it is plain that the benefit

 of concessional rate of duty extends only to that variety of kerosene

 that: (i) has a smoke point of 18mm or more, and (ii) is ordinarily

 used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps. It is manifest that these

 two conditions are conjunctive, and therefore, the twin conditions

 need to be satisfied in order to avail of the concessional rate of duty.
4
 (1996) 6 SCC 721
5
 (2007) 2 SCC 159
6
 (1962) 1 S.C.R. 374
7
 (1974) 1 SCC 128

 8
 In the instant case, the fact that the assessee cleared kerosene

 manufactured by it to industrial consumers would entail that the

 assessee cannot claim the benefit of Notifications No. 5/98-CE and

 5/99-CE.

18. In light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order of the

 Tribunal cannot be flawed, and deserves to be affirmed and we order

 accordingly. Resultantly, the appeals, being devoid of any merit, are

 dismissed with costs, quantified at `20,000/-.

 ...........................................J.
 (D.K. JAIN)

 ............................................J.
 (T.S. THAKUR)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 22, 2010. 9

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,436 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: