Page 313 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 959
Power (Contd.)
— use of - Exemption - Manufacture of laundry soap with aid of gas - Issue
arising for consideration is whether in manufacture of ‘laundry soap’ no
process carried out with aid of power or steam for heating - HELD :
Expression, ‘power’ neither defined in Tariff Act or in Notifications or
Act - Definition of ‘power’ in Factories Act, 1948 cannot be taken aid of to
determine meaning of expression ‘power’ under Tariff Act or Exemption
Notification as purpose of defining ‘power’ under Factories Act, 1948
entirely different and Finance Act, 1948 does not deal with cognate
subjects - Meaning of expression ‘power’ as contained in dictionaries also
not to be blindly applied - In common parlance, ‘power’ understood as
‘electricity’ - Object behind granting exemption from payment of Excise
duty to manufacture of soaps in cases wherein or in relation to
manufacture of soap no process carried out with aid of power is to
discourage manufacturers from using electricity in manufacture of soap -
Hindi version of Tariff Act and Exemption Notification use word
‘vidyut’, and word ‘vidyut’ means ‘electricity’ - ‘Power’ as used in
English version of notification ought to be understood to mean
‘electricity’ alone - Also, Commissioner not justified in ignoring meaning
assigned to expression ‘power’ under Circulars dated 22-3-1968 and 25-3-
1968 merely because same withdrawn - Nothing in present Tariff Act to
justify assigning any other meaning to expression ‘power’ from that
which was assigned in aforesaid two Circulars - Manufacture of ‘soap’,
therefore, to be subjected to ‘NIL’ rate of duty because of exemption
Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. - Demand unsustainable - Imposition of
penalty on Factory Manager, Authorized Signatory and Managing
Director also not sustainable - Demand set aside — Pee Cee Cosma Sope Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur (Tri. - All.) ..................... 281
Precedent - It is not open for the High Court to declare a judgment passed
by Supreme Court of India as per incuriam — Sandeep Patil v. Union of India
(Bom.) ......................................... 794
— Scope of - Case law built on shifting stands of jurisdiction, accepted by
consent - It is not comparable with one that case having jurisdictional
competence which was contested and argued by rival sides — S.
Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ......... 849
— Scope of - Decision which did not examine legal aspect at root of
jurisdiction - It is no precedent for contending that a subsequent decision,
which did, is bad law — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I.,
Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ................................. 849
Precedent decisions not considered by Tribunal, order set aside - See under
APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ...................... 574
Predicate offence - Jurisdiction over predicate offence cases under PMLA -
See under MONEY-LAUNDERING ....................... 209
Pre-export restrictions/obligations, applicability on export of Garnet - See
under EXIM ..................................... 614
Presumption of innocence is in favour of accused - See under
PROSECUTION .................................. 817
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 :
— interpretation of Section 44(1)(a) - See under INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTES ..................................... 209
— interpretation of Section 44(1)(c) - See under INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTES ..................................... 209

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  313