Page 216 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

398 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

in District of Dibrugarh during 5-11-1981 to 28-1-1982, as per rated applica-
ble in the Zone V, viz., District of Lakhimpur or residuary Zone VII. In this
contest, the Hon’ble Court examined the issue whether there was an omis-
sion to include the word Dibrugarh in the Central Government notification
of 5-11-1981 and whether the omission could be supplied. The Hon’ble
High Court held as under :
“The basic rule is that the Court should not take upon itself to
supply the omission as this is to assume the function of legislature.
This is not a case, where the Court is entitled to rewrite the notifica-
tion. The language of Notification being plain and unambiguous, it is
not open to read into it a word which is not there based on a prior rea-
soning as to the probable intention of the notification. In a Court of
Law, what is unexpressed has the same value as which is unintended.
This is a Rule of construction. It is the duty of the Court to give with-
out engrafting, adding or implying anything which is not congenial to
or consistent with such express intent of the law giver. More so, it a
Statute is a taxing Statute. It must be assumed that the Rule making
authorities do no commit mistake or make any omission. (Emphasis
supplied). Therefore, the contention of the Respondent to supply the
word ‘Dibrugarh’ in the Notification of 1981 is not permissible.”
In the present case, as already held, there is no omission in the notification
as the products corresponding to generic description “Skin Barriers Mi-
cropore Surgical Tapes” exist. Even if it were to be so, such omission could
not have been supplied in accordance with the law settled as above”.
23. We find that in view of the above, there is no ambiguity in the noti-
fication and there is no need to interpret the notification by supplying what is
assumed to be missing in the notification. We find that Hon’ble Apex Court has
held in Dilip Kumar & Company - 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) that :
22. At the outset, we must clarify the position of ‘plain meaning rule or
clear and unambiguous rule’ with respect of tax law. ‘The plain meaning
rule’ suggests that when the language in the statute is plain and unambigu-
ous, the Court has to read and understand the plain language as such and
there is no scope for any interpretation. This salutary maxim flows from the
phrase “cum inverbisnullaambiguitasest, non debetadmittivoluntatisquaestio”.
Following such maxim, the Courts sometimes have made strict interpreta-
tion subordinate to the plain meaning rule [Mangalore Chemicals case (In-
fra para 37).], though strict interpretation is used in the precise sense. To
say that strict interpretation involves plain reading of the statute and to say
that one has to utilize strict interpretation in the event of ambiguity is self-
contradictory.
In view of the above, we find that the impugned order is correct as far as
it holds that the items imported by the appellants are not eligible for the exemp-
tion contained in the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. The appel-
lants argue that another part of the notification mentions ‘bag closing clamps
karaya seals paste or powder’ whereas no such products are available and there-
fore, it need to be understood that notification misses out on certain symbols like
(,). We find that as the items described therein are not under discussion, we need
not turn our attention to the same.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  216