UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusM/S. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD

                    [2011) 2 S.C.R. 1087


                  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                          A
                              V.
          M/S. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.
             (Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 2011)
                    FEBRUARY 21, 2011
                                                                 B
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                  ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

     CENVAT CREDIT RULES, 2004:
                                                                 c
     Rule. 14- Interest on CENVA T credit wrongly availed -
Held: Interest would be payable from the date of availment of
CENVAT credit and not from the date of utilization - High
Court wrongly proceeded by reading down the provisions of
Rule 14 to mean that where CENVAT credit has been taken D
'and' utilized wrongly, interest should be payable from the date
the credit has been utilized wrongly - If the provision is read
as a whole, there is no reason to read the word "or" in between
the expressions 'taken' or 'utilized wrongly' or 'has been
erroneously refunded' as the word "and" - On the happening E
of any of the three events, CENVAT credit becomes
recoverable with interest ....; Interpretation of Statutes -Rule of
reading down - Central Excise Act, 1944-s. 11-AB.

     Central Excise Act, 1944:
                                                                 F
     s.32-M read with s.32-F(l)- Order passed by Settlement
  Commission- Finality of-Held:- An order passed by the
  Settlement Commission could be interfered with only if the
  said order is found to be contrary to any provisions of the
  Act-So far as findings of fact recorded by the Commission      G
  or questions of fact are concerned, the same is not open for
  examination either by High Court or by Supreme Court-
. Judgments/orders.

                            1087                                 H
    1088    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A       INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES :

         Tax statutes - Held: Must be interpreted in the light of
    what is clearly expressed - It is not permissible to import
    provisions in a tax statute so as to supply any assumed
    deficiency - Rule of reading down - Explained.
8
        The Revenue filed the instant appeal challenging the
  order of the High Court whereby it interfered with the
  order dated 31-05-2007 passed by the Settlement
  Commission on an application for clarification of its final
C order dated 19-01-2007 directing the assessee to pay
  interest on the CENVAT credit availed by it wrongly, from
  the date of availment of CENVAT credit and not from the
  date of utilization of a part of balance of such credit, and
  held that provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit
D Rules, 2004 would be read down to mean that where
  CENVAT credit was taken and/or utilized wrongly, interest
  would be payable on CENVAT credit from the date the
  said credit had been utilized wrongly. The High Court
  further held that on a conjoint reading of s.11-AB of the
E Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944 and Rules 3 and 4 of the
  Credit Rules, interest could not be claimed from the date
  of wrong availment of CENVAT credit but would be
  payable from the date CENVAT credit was wrongly
  utilized.
F       Allowing the appeal, the Court
        HELD:
      1.1 A bare perusal of the order of the Settlement
G Commission would indicate that It Imposed the liability of
  payment of simple interest only@ 10 per cent per annum
  on CENVAT credit wrongly availed, from the date the duty
  became payable. Incidentally, imposition of such simple
  interest at 10 per cent per annum was the minimum,
H whereas levy of interest at 36 per annum was the highest
UNION OF INDIA v. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.1089

 in terms of the s.11-AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.     A
 Besides, the allegations made in the show cause notfoe
 were admitted by the respondent which, therefore,
 establishes that the respondent had taken wrongful
 CENVAT credit from the year 2001 to 31.03.2006 and the
 payment was made only on 22.02.2006 and on five              B
 different dates in March, 2006 and on 20.11.2006, which
.indicates that the respondents had the benefit of availing
 the large amount of CENVAT credit to which they were
 otherwise not entitled. [Para 12] [1098-B-D]

     1.2 The order of the Settlement Commission also C
indicates that full immunities were granted to the
respondent from penalty and prosecution. The order was
not challenged by the respondent in any forum and,
therefore, it became final and conclusive in terms of s.32M
of the Act, which states that every order of settlement D
passed under sub-s. (7) of s.32F woul~ be conclusive as
to the matters stated therein subject to the condition that
when a settlement order is obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation of fact, such an order would be void.
According to the said provisions, no matter covered by E
such order could be reopened in. any proceeding under
the Central Excise Act or under any other law for the time
being in force. [Para 13] [1098-E-G]

      1.3 A bare reading of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit      F
Rules, 2004 would indicate that the manufacturer or the
provider of the output service becomes liable to pay
interest along with the duty where CENVAT credit has
been taken 'or' utilized wrongly 'or' has been erroneously
refunded and that in the case of such a nature the            G
provision of s.11-AB would apply for effecting such
recovery. The High Court proceeded by reading it down
to mean that where CENVAT credit has been taken 'and'
utilized wrongly, interest should be payable from the date
the CENVAT credit has been utilized wrongly for,              H
    1090   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A according to the High Court, interest cannot be claimed
  simply for the reason that the CENVAT credit has been
  wrongly taken as such availment by itself does not create
  any liability of payment of excise duty. [Para 16-17) (1099-
  F-H; 1100-A-B]
B
       1.4 The High Court misread and misinterpreted Rule
  14 and wrongly read it down without properly
  appreciating the scope and limitation thereof. A statutory
  provision is generally read down in order to save the said
C provision from being declared unconstitutional or illegal.
  Rule 14 specifically provides that where CENVAT credit
  has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been
  erroneously refunded, the same along with interest would
  be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of
  the output service. If Rule 14 is read as a whole there is
D no reason to read the word "or" in between the
  expressions 'taken' or 'utilized wrongly' or 'has been
  erroneously refunded' as the word "and". On the
  happening of any of the three aforesaid circumstances
  such credit becomes recoverable along with interest. No
E other harmonious construction is required to be given to
  the aforesaid expression/provision which is clear and
  unambiguous as it exists all by itself. [Para 17-18) [1100-
  B-F]

F      1.5 So far as s.11-AB is concerned, the same
  becomes relevant and applicable for the purpose of
  making recovery of the amount due and payable.
  Therefore, the High Court erroneously held that interest
  cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of
  CENVAT credit and that it should only be payable from
G the date when CENVAT credit is wrongly utilized. [Para
  18) [1100-F-G]
      2.1 Besides, the rule of reading down is in itself a rule
  of harmonious construction in a different name. It is
H generally utilized to straighten the crudities or ironing out
    UNION OF INDIA v. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.1091


  the creases to make a statute workable. This Court has          A
  repeatedly laid down that in the garb of reading down a
. provision it is not open to read words and expressions
1
  not found in the provision/statute and, thus, venture into
  a kind of judicial legislation. It is also held by this Court
  that the rule of reading down is to be used for the limited     B
  purpose of making a particular provision workable and
  to bring it in harmony with other provisions of the statute.
  Therefore, the attempt of the High Court to read down the
  provision by way of substituting the word "or" by an
  "and" so as to give relief to the assessee is found to be       c
  erroneous. Once the credit is taken the beneficiary is at
  liberty to utilize the same, immediately thereafter, subject
  to the Credit rules. (Para 18 and 20] (1100-G-H; 1101-A-
  B; 1102-H; 1103-A]
         Calcutta Gujarati Education Society and Another v.       D
    Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Others 2003 (2 ) Suppl.
    SCR 915 = (2003) 10 SCC 533 and B.R. Enterprises v.
    State of U.P. and Others 1999 ( 2) SCR 1111 = (1999) 9
    sec 700 - relied on.
                                                                  E
        2.2 A taxing statute must be interpreted in the light
    of what is clearly expressed. It is not permissible to
    import provisions in a taxing statute so as to supply any
    assumed deficiency. [Para 19] [1102-0]
         Commissioner of Sa/es Tax, U.P. v. Modi Sugar Miffs      F
    Ltd. (1961) 2 SCR 189 - relied on.
         3.1 An order passed by the Settlement Commission
    could be interfered with only if the said order is found to
    be contrary to any provisions of the Act. So far as
    findings of fact recorded by the Commission or questions      G
    of fact are concerned, the same is not open for
    examination either by the High Court or by the Supreme
    Court. In the instant case, the order of the Settlement
    Commission clearly indicates that its order, particularly,
                                                                  H
    1092    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A with regard to the imposition of simple interest@ 10 per
  ce11t per annum was passed in accordance with the
  provisions of Rule 14 but the High Court wrongly
  interpreted the said Rule and thereby arrived at an
  erroneous finding. The order passed by the High Court
B is set aside and the order of the Settlement Commission
  restored. [Para 21 and 23] (1103-B-D, F]

                         Case Law Reference:
        2003 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 915 relied on              para 18
c       1999 ( 2) SCR 1111          relied on           para 18
        (1961) 2 SCR 189            relied on           para 19
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    1976 of 2011.
D
        From the Judgment & Order dated 03.07.2009 of the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No.
    13860 of 2007.
      Biswajeet Bhattacharya, ASG, Shipra Ghose, B. Krishna
E Prasad for the Appellants.
        Balbir Singh, Rupendra Sinhmar, Abhishek Singh Beghel,
    Rajesh Kumar for the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
        OR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
  order dated 03.07.2009 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13860 of 2007
  passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, whereby the High
G Court while interfering with the order of the Settlement
  Commission regarding payment of interest on the CENVAT
  credit, has held that the appellants herein have wrongly claimed
  interest on the CENVAT credit, from the date when such credit
  was wrongly availed instead of the date when such credit was
H actually utilized. The High Court has further held that the
lJNION OF INDIA v. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.1093
        [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

appellants are not entitled to claim interest on the amount of         A
Rs. 50 lacs up to 31.01.2007 as the said amount already stood
deposited on 08.03.2006.

      3. The respondent herein, viz., M/s. Ind-Swift Laboratories
Ltd., is a manufacturer of bulk drugs, falling under Chapter 30        B
of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The
company received inputs and capital goods from various
manufacturers I dealers and availed CENVAT credit on the duty
paid on such materials. On the basis of intelligence report, the
factory premises of the respondent as also its group                   C
companies at different places were searched on 08.03.2006.
Searches were also conducted at the offices of large number
of firms in Ghaziabad and Naida which had allegedly issued
invoices without any accompanying goods to the respondent
and its group companies. At the same time the residential
premises of Mr. R.P. Jain and Mr. J.P. Singh, the Brokers, were        D
also searched and particularly during the course of search of
the residence of Mr. R.P. Jain kachha ledgers I notebooks I
files and cheques issued by the Swift group to the parties from
whom invoices without material were being received, were
recovered. It also appears that the appellant conducted                E
investigations which indicated that the respondent had taken
CENVAT credit on fake invoices. Consequently, a show cause
notice dated 08.12.2006 was issued to the respondent, to
which a reply was also submitted by the respondent. The
respondent company also filed applications for settlement of           F
the proceedings and consequently the entire matter was placed
before the Settlement Commission.

      4. Before the Settlement Commission, it was an admitted
 position that the case pertained to the period from 27.10.2001        F
 to 31.03.2006. The respondent company also admitted all the
 allegations and duty liability as per the show cause noticiil dated
 08.12.2006. The respondent also deposited the entire duty of
 Rs. 5, 71,47,148/-. Since conditions/parameters for the
 admission of a case prescribed under Section 32E(1) of the            H
    1094    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short "the Act"] were fulfilled and
  complied with, the application of the respondent for settlement
  was entertained and the same was proceeded with in terms
  of Section 32F(1) of the Act. After considering the records and
  hearing the parties the Commission came to the findings that
B while the wrongful CENVAT credit was taken from the year
  2001 to 31.03.2006, the payments refunds have been made
  on 22.02.2006 and on five different dates in March, 2006 and
  on 20.11.2006 and, therefore, the respondent had the benefit
  of availing the large amount of CENVAT credit to which they
c were not entitled. Considering the said fact, the Commission
  felt and was of the view that the appropriate interest liability has
  to be borne by the respondent on such wrongful availment of
  CENVAT credit. Accordingly, the applications of the
  respondent were settled under Section 32F(7) of the Act
  subject to the following terms and conditions: -
0
        "(a) The amount of duty relating to wrongful availment of
        CENVAT credit is settled at Rs. 5,71,47,148/-. As the
        entire amount has already been paid by the applicant, no
        further duty remains payable. The Bench directs that the
E       said amount of deposit by the applicant shall be
        appropriated against the amount of duty settled in this
        Order. Besides the above, the inadmissible CENVAT
        credit of Rs. 78,97,255/-, as mentioned in para 23(a)(ii)
        of the show cause notice is disallowed.
F
        (b) Immunity from interest in excess of 10% simple interest
        per annum is granted. Accordingly, the applicant shall pay
        simple interest@ 10 % per annum on CENVAT credit
        wrongly availed (i.e., Rs. 5,71,47,148/-) from the dates the
        duty became payable as per Section 11AB of the Act, till
G
        the dates of payment. Revenue is directed to calculate the
        amount of interest as per this order and intimate the same
        to the applicant within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
        Thereafter, the applicant shall pay the amount of interest
        within 15 days of the receipt of the said intimation and
H
UNION OF INDIA v. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.1095
       [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)

    report compliance both to the Bench and to Revenue."               A

      5. The said order also specifically recorded that full
immunity be granted to the respondent from penalty and
prosecution. Subsequent to the passing of the said order, the
respondent herein filed a miscellaneous application seeking for
                                                                       8
clarification contending inter. a/ia that the respondent had
deposited whole amount of duty during investigation without
protest and that, following the final order, the Revenue has
calculated interest liability of the respondent at Rs. 1,47,90,065/
- and that the Revenue has calculated the said interest up to
the date of the appropriation of the deposited amount and not          C
up to the date of payment. It was further contended that the
interest has to be calculated from the date of actual utilization
and not from the date of availment. Consequently, it was prayed
in the said application that the Settlement Commission may
clarify the actual amount of interest liability of the respondent      D
and extend the period of payment of interest in the interest of
justice and equity.

     6. The said application was taken up for consideration and
after hearing the parties the application was dismissed. While         E
rejecting the said application the Bench noted that the final order
sets out in very clear terms that the respondent shall pay simple
interest@ 10 per cent per annum on CENVAT credit wrongfully
availed from the date the duty became payable as per Section
11 AB of the Act, till the date of payment and that the application    F
is misconceived and that no. case of any clarification is made
out because interest has to be calculated till the date of the
payment of the duty. It was also held that the interest is also
payable with reference to the date of availment of CENVAT
credit and not from the date of utilization of a part of the balance   G
of such credit. The Commission held that such an issue was
never raised before the Settlement Commission at any earlier
stage. The Commission while rejecting the application held as
follows: -

     "The said show cause notice vide Para 23 thereof                  H
    1096    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A       proposes to demand the CENVAT credit availed
        fraudulently by the applicant and not the amount of
        CENVAT utilized by the applicant. As such, it naturally
        follows that the interest is also payable with reference to
        the date of availment of CENVAT credit and not from the
B       date of utilization of a part of balance of such credit. In any
        case, this issue was not raised in the application of
        settlement or at the time of settlement. In a query from the
        Bench, Id. Advocate also not raising this issue during
        settlement proceedings. As such, the Bench finds no
c       justification to go into the practice adopted by the Revenue
        in this regard. In any case, it is a new point that did not
        arise for decision in the Final Order and on which the
        applicant is not seeking a decision in the garb of seeking
         a clarification. The Commission has already decided the
        issueswhich were brought before it through the Settlement
D
        Application. Section 32M of the Central Excise Act, 1944
        bars the Commission from re-opening its final order.
         Hence, the final order already passed in the matter was
         conclusive as to the matters stated therein and the same
         cannot be re-opened for the purpose of deciding the said
E        point raised subsequently."

        7. The respondent, however, did not pay the entire amount
  in terms of the liability fixed. Consequently, a letter was issued
  on 16.08.2007 from the office of the appellant directing the
F appellant to pay the balance amount in terms of the order dated
  19.01.2007.
       8. The records disclose that immediately on receipt of the
  aforesaid letter the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High
G Court of Punjab & Haryana which was registered as Civil Writ
  Petition No. 13860 of 2007, praying for quashing the order
  dated 31.05.2007 which was passed by the Settlement
  Commission on the applications seeking clarifications and the
  letter dated 16.08.2007 by which the office of the appellant

H
UNION OF INDIA v. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD:1097
       [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
requested the respondent to deposit the balance amount in             A
terms of the order dated 19.01.2007.

     9. The High Court issued notice and heard the parties on
the said Writ Petition. By its judgment and order dated
03.07.2009 the said Writ Petition was allowed by the High             8
Court holding that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
[for short "Credit Rules"] has to be read down to mean that
where CENVAT credit has been taken and/or utilized wrongly,
interest should be payable on the CENVAT credit from the date
the said credit had been utilized wrongly and that interest cannot    C
be claimed simply for the reason that the CENVAT credit has
been wrongly taken, as such availment by itself does not create
any liability of payment of excise duty. The High Court further
held that on a conjoint reading of Section 11AB of the Tariff Act
and that of Rules 3 & 4 of the Credit Rules, interest cannot be
claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit             D
and that the interest would be payable from the date CENVAT
credit was wrongfully utilized.

     10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order·
passed by the High Court the present appeal was filed by the E
appellant, which was entertained and notice was issued to the
respondent, on receipt of which, they have entered
appearance. Counsel appearing for the parties were heard at
length when the matter was listed for final arguments. By the
present judgment and order we now proceed to dispose the F
said appeal by recording our reasons.

     11. The facts delineated hereinabove make it crystal clear
that the respondent accepted all the allegations raised in the
show cause notice and also the duty liability under the said
show cause notice dated 08.12.2006. They also deposited the           G
entire duty of Rs. 5,71,47, 148/- prior to the issuance of the show
cause notice and, therefore, they requested for settlement of
the proceedings in terms of Section 32E read with Section 32F
of the Act. The said settlement proceedings were conducted
in accordance with law and was finalized by the order dated           H
    1098    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A   19.01.2007 on the terms and conditions which have already
    been extracted hereinbefore.

       12. A bare perusal of the said order would indicate that
  the Settlement commission has imposed the liability of payment
B of simple interest only @ 10 per cent per annum on CENVAT
  credit wrongly availed, that is, Rs. 5,71,47, 148/- from the date
  the duty became payable. Incidentally, imposition of such simple
  interest at 10 per cent per annum was the minimum, whereas
  levy of interest at 36 per cent per annum was the highest in
C terms of the Section11 AB of the Act. Besides, the allegations
  made in the show cause notice were admitted by the
  respondent which, therefore, establishes that the respondent
  had taken wrongful CENVAT credit from the year 2001 to
  31.03.2006 and the payment has been made only on
  22.02.2006 and on five different dates in March, 2006 and on
D 20.11.2006, which indicates that the respondent had the
  benefit of availing the large amount of CENVAT credit to which
  they were otherwise not entitled to.

        13. The order of the Settlement Commission also indicates
E that full immunities were granted to the respondent from penalty
  and prosecution. The aforesaid order was not challenged by
  the respondent in any forum and, therefore, it became final and
  .conclusive in terms of Section 32M of the Act, which states that
  every order of settlement passed under sub-Section 7 of
F Section 32F would be conclusive as to the matters stated
  therein subject to the condition that when a settlement order is
  obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of fact, such an order
  would be void. According to the said provisions, no matter
  covered by such order could be reopened in any proceeding
G under the Central Excise Act or under any other law for the time
  being in force.

        14. Although, subsequently, an application by way of
  clarification was filed by the respondent, the said application
  was, however, not entertained. It was held that the said
H application is misconceived, particularly, in view of the fact that
UNION OF INDIA v. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.1099
       [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

  no such issue was raised before the Commission. Since, A
. however, a Writ Petition was filed by the respondent challenging
  only the second order of the Settlement Commission and the
 subsequent letter issued from the office of the appellant, on the.
 basis of which, High Court even proceeded to interfere with the
 first order passed by the Settlement Commission, we heard the B
 counsel appearing for the parties on the issue decided by the
  High Court also.

     15.. In order to appreciate the findings recorded by the High .
Court by way of reading down the provision of Rule 14, we
deem it appropriate to extract the said Rule at this stage which C
is as follows:

     "Rule 14. Recovery of CENVAT credit wrongly taken or
     erroneously refunded: - Where the CENVAT credit has
     been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously         D
     refunded, the same along with interest shall be recovered
     from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service
     and the provisions of Sections 11 A and 11 AB of the Excise
     Act or Sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, shall apply
     mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries."               E

      16. A bare reading of the said Rule would indicate that the
manufacturer or the provider of the output service becomes
liable to pay interest along with the duty where CENVAT credit
has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously          F
refunded and that in the case of the aforesaid nature the
provision of Section 11AB would apply for effecting such
recovery.

     17. We have very carefully read the impugned judgment
and order of the High Court. The High Court proceeded by            G
reading it down to mean that where CENVAT credit has been
taken and utilized wrongly, interest should be payable from the
date the CENVAT credit has been utilized wrongly for according
to the High Court interest cannot be claimed simply for the
reason that the CENVAT credit has been wrongly taken as such        H
    1100    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A availment by itself does not create any liability of payment of
  excise duty. Therefore, High Court on a conjoint reading of
  Section 11AB of the Act and Rules 3 & 4 of the Credit Rules
  proceeded to hold that interest cannot be claimed from the date
  of wrong availment of CE NVAT credit and that the interest
B would be payable from the date CENVAT credit is wrongly
  utilized. In our considered opinion, the High Court misread and
  misinterpreted the aforesaid Rule 14 and wrongly read it down
  without properly appreciating the scope and limitation thereof.
  A statutory provision is generally read down in order to save
c the said provision from being declared unconstitutional or illegal.
  Rule 14 specifically provides that where CENVAT credit has
  been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously
  refunded, the same along with interest would be recovered from
  the manufacturer or the provider of the output service. The issue
D is as to whether the aforesaid word "OR" appearing in Rule 14,
  twice, could be read as "AND" by way of reading it down as
  has been done by the High Court. If the aforesaid provision is
  read as a whole we find no reason to read the word "OR" in
  between the expressions 'taken' or 'utilized wrongly' or 'has
  been erroneously refunded' as the word "AND". On the
E happening of any of the three aforesaid circumstances such
  credit becomes recoverable along with interest.

        18. We do not feel that any other harmonious construction
  is required to be given to the aforesaid expression/provision
F which is clear and unambiguous as it exists all by itself. So far
  as Section 11AB is concerned, the same becomes relevant and
  applicable for the purpose of making recovery of the amount
  due and payable. Therefore, the High Court erroneously held
  that interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment
G of CENVAT credit and that it should only be payable from the
  date when CENVAT credit is wrongly utilized. Besides, the rule
  of reading down is in itself a rule of harmonious construction in
  a different name. It is generally utilized to straighten the crudities
  or ironing out the creases to make a statute workable. This
H Court has repeatedly laid down that in the garb of reading down
UNION OF INDIA v. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.1101
       [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

a provision it is not open to read words and expressions not           A·
found in the provision/statute and thus venture in~o a kind of
judicial legislation. It is also held by this Court that the Rule of
reading down is to be used for the limited purpose of making
a particular provision workable and to bring it in harmony with
other provisions of the statute. In this connection we may             B
appropriately refer to the decision of this Court in Calcutta
Gujarati Education Society and Another v. Calcutta Municipal
 Corporation and Others reported in (2003) 10 SCC 533 in
which reference was made at Para 35 to the following
observations of this Court in the case of B.R. Enterprises v.          c
 State of U.P. and Others reported in (1999) 9 SCC 700: -

     "81. .. ............ It is also well settled that first attempt
     should be made by the courts to uphold the charged
     provision and not to invalidate it merely because one of
     the possible interpretations leads to suc.'1 a result, D
     howsoever attractive it may be. Thus, where there are two
     possible interpretations, one invalidating the law and the
     other upholding, the latter should be adopted. For this,
     the courts have been endeavouring, sometimes to give
     restrictive or expansive meaning keeping in view the E
     nature of legislation, maybe beneficial, penal or fiscal etc.
     Cumulatively it is to subserve the object of the legislation.
     Old golden rule is of respecting the wisdom of legislature
     that they are aware of the law and would never have
     intended for an invalid legislation. This also keeps courts F
     within their track and checks individual zeal of going
     wayward. Yet in spite of this, if the impugned legislation
     cannot be saved the courts shall not hesitate to strike it
     down. Similarly, for upholding any provision, if it could be
     saved by reading it down, it should be done, unless plain G
     words are so clear to be in defiance of the Constitution.
     These interpretations spring out because of concern of
     the courts to salvage a legislation to achieve its objective
     and not to let it fall merely because of a possible
     ingenious interpretation. The words are not static but H
    1102    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A       dynamic. This infuses fertility in the field of interpretation.
        This equally helps to save an Act but also the cause of
        attack on the Act. Here the courts have to play a ca.utious
        role of weeding out the wild from the crop, of course,
        without infringing the Constitution. For doing this, the
B       courts have taken help from the preamble, Objects, the
        scheme of the Act, its historical background, the purpose
        for enacting such a provision, the mischief, if any which
        existed,       which       is        sought         to       be
        eliminated ......................................... .
c
        This principle of reading down, however, will not be
        available where the plain and literal meaning from a bare
        reading of any impugned provisions clearly shows that it
        confers arbitrary, uncanalised or unbridled power.•
        (emphasis supplied)"
D
        19. A taxing statute must be interpreted in the light of what
  is clearly expressed. It is not permissible to import provisions
  in a taxing statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. In
  support of the same we may refer to the decision of this Court
E in Commissioner of Sa/es Tax, U.P. v. Modi Sugar Mi/ls Ltd.
  reported in (1961) 2 SCR 189 wherein this Court at Para 10
  has observed as follows: -
        "10 ......... In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable
F       considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing
        statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or
        assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words
      · of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing
        statute in the light of what is clearly expressed: it cannot
        imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import
G
        provisions in the statutes so as to supply any assumed
        deficiency."
       20. Therefore, the attempt of the High Court to read down
  the provision by way of substituting the word "OR" by an "AND"
H so a.s to give relief to the assessee is found to be erroneous.
UNION OF INDIA v. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.1103
       [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
In that regard the submission of the counsel for the appellant       A
is well-founded that once the said credit is taken the beneficiary
is at liberty to utilize the same, immediately thereafter, subject
to the Credit rules.
     21. An order passed by the Settlement Commission could
                                                                     8
be interfered with only if the said order is found to be contrary
to any provisions of the Act. So far findings of the fact recorded
by Commission or question of facts are concerned, the same
is not open for examination either by the High Court or by the
Supreme Court. In the present case the order of the Settlement
Commission clearly indicates that the said order, particularly,      C
with regard to the imposition of simple interest @ 10 per cent
per annum was passed in accordance with the provisions of
Rule 14 but the High Court wrongly interpreted the said Rule
and thereby arrived at an erroneous finding.
                                                                     D
     22. So far as the second issue with respect to interest on
Rs. 50 lacs is concerned, the same being a factual issue should
not have been gone into by the High Court exercising the writ
jurisdiction and the High Court should not have substituted its
own opinion against the opinion of the Settlement Commission         E
when the same was not challenged on merits.

     23. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order passed
by the Punjab & Haryana High Court by the impugned judgment ·
and order and restore the order of the Settlement Commission
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.                       F

R.P.                                            Appeal allowed.