Page 142 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

28 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

50. The bare reading of the aforesaid Notification would amply make it
clear, that the Central Government after being satisfied that it was necessary in
the public interest so to do, thereby exempted the finished products, rejects and
waste or scrap which was produced or manufactured in a hundred per cent ex-
port-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 para-
graph 9.9 or of paragraph 9.20 of the EXIM Policy, from so much of the duty of
excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 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 per cent export-oriented undertaking or a free trade zone, if sold in In-
dia.
51. It could thus be seen, that the said notification specifically provides
grant of exemption to the EOUs from the payment of duties, which are in excess
of what is leviable under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act,
1944 on like goods, produced or manufactured in India. In our considered view,
since the said Exemption Notification specifically mentions, that the goods pro-
duced or manufactured by an 100% EOU, which are allowed to be sold in India
in accordance with para 9.9(b) of the EXIM Policy, the proviso would be inappli-
cable thereby, requiring the duties to be paid, as are required to be paid under
sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act. The conditions which can be culled
out for enabling to get the benefit of the said Exemption Notification are as un-
der :
(i) The finished products, rejects and waste or scrap specified in the
Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 should be produced
or manufactured in the 100% export-oriented undertaking or a free
trade zone;
(ii) The said finished products should be manufactured wholly from
the raw materials produced or manufactured in India;
(iii) They are allowed to be sold in India under and in accordance with
the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of para-
graph 9.9 or of paragraph 9.20 of the EXIM Policy.
52. Undisputedly, in the present case, the transaction between UFAC
and TISCO satisfies all the three conditions. The goods are produced and manu-
factured by UFAC, an 100% export-oriented unit; they are manufactured wholly
from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India and, thirdly, they
have been allowed to be sold in India in accordance with the provisions of para-
graph 9.9(b) of the EXIM Policy.
53. We will now consider the submission of Shri Radhakrishnan,
Learned Senior Counsel, that in view of substitution of the words “allowed to be
sold in India” by “brought to any other place in India”, the said Exemption Noti-
fication shall stand impliedly overruled/repealed.
54. No doubt, that the reliance placed by the Learned Senior Counsel
on the judgments of this Court to the effect that if there are inconsistencies in two
statutes, the later would prevail is well placed. This Court in Deep Chand v. State
of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1959 SC 648] has laid down the following principles to as-
certain whether there is repugnancy or not :
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  190