Case: Messrs J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

the Collector, but the question is what has to be specified by the Collector. It is the contention of the appellants that the Collector has to specify the place of manufacture and also any premises appurtenant thereto. We are, however, unable to accept this contention. The place where the goods are to be manufactured by a manufacturer, that is to say, the site of the factory cannot be specified by the Collector. IT is for the manufacturer to choose the site or the place where the factory will be constructed and goods will be manufactured. Rule 9(1), in our opinion, does not produced, cured or manufactured. The words "which may be specified by the Collector in this behalf" occurring in Rule 9(1) of the Rules do not qualify the words "any place where they are produced, cured or manufactured", but relate to or qualify the words "any premises appurtenant thereto". In other words, if the place of removal is not the place where the goods are produced, cured or manufactured, but any premises appurtenant to such place, in that case, the Collector has to specify such premises for the purpose of collection of excise duty. Thus the contention of the appellants that the Collector has to specify the place of manufacture and also any premises appurtenant thereto under Rule 9(1) of the Rules, is without any substance. 44. Our attention has, however, been drawn to the impugned circular dated September 24, 1980 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. In Clause 3 of the circular, it is stated as follows: "Mere approval of a the ground plan in a routine manner will not suffice for purposes of Rule 9 as under the said rule the place of production etc. or premises appurtenant thereto have also to be specified separately." 45. Under the circular, the Collector is required to specify under Rule 9(1) both the place of production and premises appurtenant thereto, if any. In view of this direction given in the circular, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is not only binding on the Collector and the other officers of the Central Excise Department, but also the circular is in the nature of contemporanea exposito rendering useful aid in the construction of the provision of Rule 9(1) of the Rules. This contention finds support from the decision of this Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO [(1982) 1 SCR 629] relied on by the learned counsel of the appellants. Indeed, it has been observed in that case that the rule of construction by reference to contemporanea exposito is a well established rule for interpreting a statute by reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary authority, though it must give way where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. In our opinion, the language of Rule 9(1) admits of only one interpretation and that is that the specification that has to be made by the Collector is of any premises appurtenant to the place of manufacture or production of the excisable goods. The specification is not required to be made and, in our view, cannot be made of the place of manufacture or production of the excisable goods. Apart from that, as observed by Subba Rao, J., upon a review of all the decisions on the point, in an earlier decision of this Court in the Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra [(1962) 3 SCR 146] , the maxim contemporanea exposito as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. Further, it has been observed that in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made and, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them. Most respectfully we agree with the said observation of Subba Rao, J. In the circumstances, we do not agree with the direction of the Board of Central Excise & Customs given in the impugned circular that both the place of manufacture and the premises appurtenant thereto must be specified by the Collector under Rule 9(1) of the Rules. Thus, there being no question of specification of the place of manufacture, the contention of the appellants that without such specification there cannot be any deemed removal, fails. 46. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that the amendments to Rules 9 and 49 are quite legal and valid. Further, Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 giving retrospective effect to the said amendments is also legal and valid. 47. In the instant case, the appellants are liable to pay excise duty on the yarn which is obtained at an intermediate stage and, thereafter, further processed in an integrated process for weaving the same into fabrics. Although it has been alleged that the yarn is obtained at an intermediate stage of an integrated process of manufacture of fabrics, it appears to be not so. After the yarn is produced it is sized and, thereafter, subjected to a process of weaving the same into fabrics. Be that as it may, as we have held that the commodity which is obtained at an intermediate stage of an integrated process of manufacture of another commodity, is liable to the payment of excise duty, the yarn that is produced by the appellants is also liable to payment of excise duty. In our view, the High Court by the impugned judgment has rightly held that the appellants are not liable to pay any excise duty on the yarn after it is sized for the purpose of weaving the same into fabrics. No distinction can be made between unsized yarn and sized yarn, for the unsized yarn when converted into sized yarn does not lose its character as yarn.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]32. Under Section 11-A(1) the excise authorities cannot recover duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded beyond the period of six months, the proviso to Section 11-A not being applicable in the present case. Thus although Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 has given retrospective effect to the amendments of Rules 9 and 49, yet it must be subject to the provision of Section 11-A of the Act. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Attorney General that as Section 51 has made the amendments retrospective in operation since February 28, 1944, it should be held that it overrides the provision of Section 11-A. If the intention of the legislature was to nullify the effect of Section 11-A, in that case, the legislature would have specifically provided for the same. Section 51 does not contain any non-obstinate clause, nor does it refer to the provision of Section 11-A. In the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that Section 51 overrides the provision of Section 11-AIn our view Section 51 does not, in any manner, affect the provision of Section 11-A of the Act. In the absence of any specific provision overriding Section 11-A, it will be consistent with rules of harmonious construction to hold that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 insofar as it gives retrospective effect to the amendments made to Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules, is subject to the provision of Section 11-AThe legislature is quite competent to enact a deeming provision for the purpose of assuming the existence of a fact which does not really exist. It has been already noticed that the taxing event under Section 3 of the Act is the production or manufacture of goods and not removal. The explanations to Rules 9 and 49 contemplate the collection of duty levied on the production of a commodity at an intermediate stage of an integrated process of manufacture of another commodity by deeming such production or manufacture of the commodity at an intermediate stage to be removal from such place or premises of manufacture. The deeming provisions are quite consistent with Section 3 of the Act. As observed by the Federal Court in Boddu Paidanna case [AIR 1942 FC 33] there is in theory nothing to prevent the central legislature from imposing a duty of excise on a commodity as soon as it comes into existence, no matter what happens to it afterwards, whether it be sold, consumed or destroyed or given away. It is for the convenience of the taxing authority that duty is collected at the time of removal of the commodity. There is, therefore, nothing unreasonable in the deeming provision and, as discussed above, it is quite in conformity with the provision of Section 3 of the Act. The contention that the amendments to Rules 9 and 49 are ultra vires clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act, is without substance and is overruled47. In the instant case, the appellants are liable to pay excise duty on the yarn which is obtained at an intermediate stage and, thereafter, further processed in an integrated process for weaving the same into fabrics. Although it has been alleged that the yarn is obtained at an intermediate stage of an integrated process of manufacture of fabrics, it appears to be not so. After the yarn is produced it is sized and, thereafter, subjected to a process of weaving the same into fabrics. Be that as it may, as we have held that the commodity which is obtained at an intermediate stage of an integrated process of manufacture of another commodity, is liable to the payment of excise duty, the yarn that is produced by the appellants is also liable to payment of excise duty. In our view, the High Court by the impugned judgment has rightly held that the appellants are not liable to pay any excise duty on the yarn after it is sized for the purpose of weaving the same into fabrics. No distinction can be made between unsized yarn and sized yarn, for the unsized yarn when converted into sized yarn does not lose its character as yarn