Page 141 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMR. OF C. EX., NAGPUR v. UNIVERSAL FERRO & ALLIED CHEMICALS LTD. 27

that defect. The statute requires to be interpreted without doing any vio-
lence to the language used therein. The court cannot rewrite, recast or re-
frame the legislation for the reason that it has no power to legislate.
44. No word in a statute has to be construed as surplusage. No word can
be rendered ineffective or purposeless. Courts are required to carry out the
legislative intent fully and completely. While construing a provision, full ef-
fect is to be given to the language used therein, giving reference to the con-
text and other provisions of the statute. By construction, a provision should
not be reduced to a “dead letter” or “useless lumber”. An interpretation
which renders a provision otiose should be avoided otherwise it would
mean that in enacting such a provision, the legislature was involved in “an
exercise in futility” and the product came as a “purposeless piece” of legis-
lation and that the provision had been enacted without any purpose and
the entire exercise to enact such a provision was “most unwarranted be-
sides being uncharitable”. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao
Khanderao Jambekar [AIR 1965 SC 1457], Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta
[AIR 1966 SC 529], M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading (P) Ltd.
[1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 : AIR 1993 SC 1014], Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand
Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 373] , State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. [(1997) 2 SCC
453 : AIR 1997 SC 1511] , Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price
Waterhouse [(1997) 6 SCC 312] and South Central Railway Employees Coop.
Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies [(1998) 2 SCC
580 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 703 : AIR 1998 SC 703])”
48. We therefore find, that the interpretation as sought to be placed by
Shri Radhakrishnan would render the term “unless specifically provided in such
notification” in sub-section (1) of Section 5A otiose or useless. Such an interpreta-
tion would not be permissible. We find, that the harmonious construction of sub-
section (1) of Section 5A of the Act and the proviso thereto would be, that an
EOU which brings the excisable goods to any other place in India would not be
entitled for a general exemption notification unless it is so specifically provided
in such a notification.
49. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to Exemption Notification
of 1997 as amended by Notification No. 21/97-C.E., dated 11-4-1997, relevant
part of which reads thus :
“Effective rate of duty on certain goods produced in FTZ or EOU. - In ex-
ercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Cen-
tral Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, being satisfied
that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the fin-
ished products, rejects and waste or scrap specified in the Schedule to the Cen-
tral Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and produced or manufactured, in a
hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking or a free trade zone wholly
from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India, and allowed to
be sold in India under and in accordance with the provisions of sub-
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of paragraph 9.9 or of paragraph 9.20 of
the Export and Import Policy, 1st April, 1997-31st March, 2002, from so
much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), as is in excess of an amount equal to the aggregate of
the duties of excise leviable under the said Section 3 of the Central Excise Act or
under any other law for the time being in force on like goods, produced or
manufactured in India other than in a hundred percent export-oriented un-
dertaking or a free trade zone, if sold in India.”

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  189