New CENTRAL Excise RULES – BAD ENGLISH???

 

by

 

AVINASH

 

 

The old laws were confusing and not in a language that ordinary people understood. So extraordinary people were called in to examine, analyse and explain to the world what the law really meant. There are whole lot of theories on how to interpret, what the meanings of defined words should be and what of undefined ones. The intention of legislature, ironing out the creases and such other phrases gained prominence in legal circles and a very successful enterprise thrived on these inaccuracies of law. I understand that the framers of law in Central Excise decided to change all that. No more confusing complex sentences. The law is to be in the lay man's language so that even the scholar would not understand it! I am reminded of a story of a great poet who wrote poetry, which no body could understand. He was asked whether anybody understood what he wrote. He said at the time of writing there were two who understood his poetry, but after writing there was only one who understood it. The two were God and the poet himself and after writing, the only one who understood it was GOD. I think it is true of the poet who writes

I do not have much knowledge of Excise laws – with frequent changes, I doubt if any one has, but it fascinates me that a simple thing like, " What is the duty payable by a manufacturer who is clearing Capital Goods on which he has taken 50% credit?", is not answered by the lawmakers in spite of loud questioning by all concerned. The purpose of this short article is to highlight with a few examples, the facts that

1. Law makers ( or may be law writers) do not take the laws ( or writing) seriously.
   
2. It is one of the many jobs they have to do and so can be done as casually as possible.
   
3. It really does not matter that their careless drafting will lead to protracted litigation – after all they don't lose anything
   
4. If at all a grave mistake is pointed out later, the law can always be amended retrospectively and it can be smuggled into parliament during budget session when it will be least noticed.
   
5. The law writers do not have a good computer or may be their data entry operators are as careless as the brainy masters are.
   
6. The law writers are too big to use the spell check ( and grammar check) facility available in any outdated version of a computer.
   
7. More than law drafters, the Finance Ministry should appoint a couple of good typists( data entry operators) and proof readers. Then and only then, the quality of our law writing would improve.
   

 

Now, let us look into some important aspects of the new Central Excise Rules,2001

Rule 9: Registration.-

1. Every person, who produces, manufactures, carries on trade, holds private store-room or warehouse or otherwise uses excisable goods, shall get registered and shall not engage in the production, manufacture, trade, storing in private store room or warehouse or use excisable goods without having applied for such registration to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in proper form.
   

 

This means that the Superintendent has to be in proper form and not the application. How to find out if the Superintendent is in proper form. Is he in form if he is in uniform? Quite a simplification?

 

(3) The Board, may, by notification, and subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in such notification, specify person or class of persons who may not require such registration.

Who decides this? The earlier rule said, " who need not obtain such registration". Isn't there a lot of difference between who may not require and who need not obtain? Whether I require a registration or not is my prerogative; whether I am required to obtain registration or not may be the Government's.

 

(4) If the person specified under sub-rule (1) make use of more than one premises, registration he shall obtain separate registration certificate for each of such premises.

May
be
make
should have been makes and the word registration is not necessary. A typist's error of course! Somebody typed make instead makes and that somebody while chatting with somebody else typed an extra ' registration'. Perfectly normal for a typist to do. But is there a thing called comparison? I am told in Government offices, irate bosses throw files at officers who put up such incorrect drafts. Should such carelessly drafted law

be hurriedly flashed through internet to the nation?. Somebody should have been asked to read, yes, simply read the laws before they are exposed to the nation!

 

Rule 11(3) reads as follows,

"(3) The invoice shall be prepared in triplicate in the following manner, namely:-

1. the original copy being marked as ORIGINAL FOR BUYER;
   
2. ......................
   

 

What is being marked? A tense problem?

 

The IPC and the Indian Evidence Act are apparently badly drafted laws! But they survived a century. Thank God such law writers and the great equipment called computer were not available in those days!

 

 

 

 

 

Excise laws.