Page 299 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 945
Interpretation of statutes (Contd.)
— Definition - Definition of one statute having a different object, purpose
and scheme cannot be applied mechanically to another statute — Commr. of
C. Ex., Nagpur v. Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. (S.C.) ............... 14
— Exemption - Attempt needs to be made to find out meaning which would
achieve rather than frustrate the object of granting exemption and that
meaning should be preferred which does not lead to uncertainty or
unintended results — Pee Cee Cosma Sope Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Kanpur (Tri. - All.) ................................... 281
— Interpretation of provision/section - Due weightage to be given to each
and every word used in statute — Commr. of C. Ex., Nagpur v. Universal Ferro &
Allied Chemicals Ltd. (S.C.) ................................ 14
— Plain and literal interpretation to be adhered to — Commr. of C. Ex., Nagpur v.
Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. (S.C.) ........................ 14
— Section 44(1)(a) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Statutory
provision refers to two offences viz. scheduled offence and offence
punishable under Section 4 ibid - In deciding whether Special Court
within whose jurisdiction scheduled offence committed or Special Court
within whose jurisdiction offence under Section 4 committed ibid Section
44(1)(a) ibid provides that, Court constituted for area in which offence
committed - Section 44(1)(a) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 — Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB v. Asstt. Dir., Directorate of Enforcement (Ker.) ..... 209
— Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 -
Authorized officer competent to lay complaint vested with solemn
discretion to carefully apply his mind and only in appropriate cases
where committal to Special Court will not defeat prosecution and enable
speedy disposal of case and achieve purpose of Statute should file
application - Terms “it shall” in impugned Section 44(1)(c) ibid following
words “under sub-clause (b)” does not make it mandatory on Court to
allow every application, without due application of mind and de hors
merits of case - Section 44(1)(a) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 — Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB v. Asstt. Dir., Directorate of Enforcement (Ker.) ..... 209
— Shall - It denotes mandate - It is not inevitably regarded as mandatory
and Court is guided by real intention of Legislature — Union of India v. E.I.
Dupoint India (Del.) ................................... 625
— taxing statute - Notes on clauses - Reference to notes on clauses cannot
decide whether amendment is clarificatory, unless amendment itself so
unequivocally states — Commissioner Central Excise, Mumbai-V v. Reliance Media
Works Ltd. (Bom.) .................................... 220
— Tools for interpretation - “Common parlance test”, “marketability test”,
“popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at
decision on proper classification of a Tariff Entry - Such tests required to
be applied if a particular Tariff Entry capable of being classified in more
than one heads — Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. UNI Products India Ltd.
(S.C.) ......................................... 465
INTERPRETATIVE RULES :
— Rule 3(a) - See under CARPETS .......................... 465
Inter-State purchases of High Speed Diesel Oil on concessional rate of tax,
directions to issue Form C - See under HIGH SPEED DIESEL OIL ....... 338
Investigation - Offences under Money Laundering Act, scope of
investigation and trial - See under PREVENTION OF MONEY
LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 (PMLA) ........................ 209
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  299