Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) By this writ application the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 30th December, 1992 issued by the respondent No. 1, namely the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Midnapore Division, and all the proceedings initiated relating thereto and, further to approve the classification list on the basis of the goods are exempted from payment of any duty and to allow the petitioner company to export the goods without payment of excise duty.
(2.) The fact is very short and to iterate that the petitioner manufactured two decks and helidecks (hereinafter referred to as the said goods). The said goods are required for offshore drilling for oil. Central Excise Duty is leviable on the said goods under the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner obtained order in the year 1984 from the Oil and Natural Gass Commission, respondent No. 5, for supply of the said goods at their project for exploration of oil at Bombay High. On February 26, 1985, the petitioner made an application to the Ministry of Industries and Company Affairs, Department of Industrial Development, for grant of industrial licence under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for manufacture of the offshore wellhead, water injection, process platform and allied components. The petitioner also requested the Ministry to process a proposal for obtaining 100% export oriented unit licence. After considering all the relevant facts, the Board of Approval of the Central Government duly approved the undertaking of the petitioner at Tehsil Jelligham, Mouza, Gangar Char, District- Midnapore, as 100% export oriented unit. Thereafter, the petitioner manufactured two decks and two helidecks in its said export oriented unit. By a letter dated April 7, 1988 addressed to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner informed that it would export the said goods and will avail of the benefit of exemption granted by the Notification No. 123/81 dated June 2, 1981. A classification list was enclosed with the said letter. In the said classification list, it was mentioned that the rate of duty is nil as the said goods are exempted from payment of excise duty on the strength of notification being Notification No. 123/81 dated June 2, 1981. However, the aforesaid classification list was not accepted and the respondent No. 1 issued show-cause notice as to why appropriate excise duty shall not be levied and realized. As a matter of fact, by order dated August 8/12, 1988 the Assistant Commissioner rejected the classification list availed by the petitioner on the alleged ground as the decks were sold to respondent No. 5. A platform which was placed for the time being is under the control of India and therefore the said case should not be considered. It was held further by the above respondent that the exemption Notification No. 125/84 did not apply as the decks were sold in India.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the decision of the respondent No. 1 is wholly wrong, as on the strength of the above exemption notification no excise duty is leviable as the goods were exported. He contends, admittedly, that the goods were sent and despatched to the 'ED' and 'EE' platforms, which are situated on the high seas more than 200 nautical miles (250 km.) beyond the territorial water of India. Section 2(18) of the Customs Act defines the word 'Export' to mean taking out of India. The word 'India' has been defined in section 2(27) of that Act which includes territorial waters. Section 3(2) of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zones and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Zone Act) provides that the limit of the territorial waters is extended upto a distance of 12 nautical miles. Section 5 of the said Zone Act provides that contiguous zone of India is extended upto 24 nautical miles section 6 of the said Zone Act provides that the continental shelf is extended upto a distance of 200 nautical miles. Section 6(a) of the Zone Act provides that the Central Government may by notification extend any enactment to the continental shelf or any part including any designated area under sub-section (5) of the said Act. By circular dated September 28, 1994, the Central Government, Ministry of Finance, classified that the provisions of Customs Act could not be made applicable to the area of exclusive economic zone unless legislations are specifically made applicable to the said area. It was further clarified by Circular dated March 27,1995 that the platforms would lie outside the scope of Customs Act till the notification was issued. The said platform 'ED' and 'EE' were not included in the notification dated 18th July, 1986 issued by the Government. The said notification did not mention 'ED' and 'EE' platforms as declared areas in the continental shelf. The Customs Act was extended to such designated areas by Notification Bearing No. 64/99-Cus (N.T.) dated 1st December, 1997. He then contends that although the said 'ED' and 'EE' platforms were within continental shelf the Central Excise Act did not apply to the said platforms in 1988 when the goods were exported as the Government did not issue notification entending the area. Granting of exemption has to be read and understood on the clear meaning of the word as mentioned in the notification irrespective of the legislative intention and object underlined therein. Unlike ordinary legislation, fiscal stature has to be read strictly in terms of the language. In this connection, he has relied on the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1970 SC 755, Hansraj Gordhandas vs. H. H. Dave and 25 ELT 861, Corromondal Fertilisers Limited vs. Collector of Customs. The Customs Act has been extended to the whole of the exclusive economic zone by Notification No. 189(e) dated 7th February, 2002 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs.;