R. C. Lahoti ( 1 ) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred at the instance of the Revenue the following question of law (relating to the assessment year 1979-80) for the opinion of the High Court : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that the Rule 6aa of the Income-tax Rules made effective w. e. f. 1. 8. 81 is applicable and weighted deduction u/sec. 35b of Inspection Fee is admissible to the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80? ( 2 ) THE assessee is a co-operative society and amongst other activities also exports some agricultural products. Before the Tribunal the controversy centred around the assessee s claim for allowance of weighted deduction under Section 35b of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of inspection fees. The assessee was having arrangement with certain parties who were provisionally qualified for the purpose of inspection of goods meant for export. The submission of the assessee was that under Section 35b (1 ) (b) (ix) it was provided that weighted ded uction was allowable on such export promotional activities as may be prescribed. Rules were framed and made effective from 1. 8. 81 prescribing such activities. Inasmuch as the assessment proceedings had not yet achieved the finality as the appeal was pending before the ITAT when the Rules came into force, the benefit of the Rules was available to the assessee. It was also submitted that once the rule was framed the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee by reference to the date by which the main provision in the statute itself had existed. On behalf of the Revenue,it was submitted that Rule 6aa came into force w. e. f. 1. 8. 1981 and therefore, the assessee could not claim weighted deduction by relyingon the rule fora period anterior to 1. 8. 1981 and retroactively extending its applicability thereto. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal agreed with the assessee. Videpara4, the Tribunal has opined: "we have considered the facts of the case and we are of the view that the section and sub-section under which the weighted,deduction is claimed was in force in this assessment year though the rules have been provided later on. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal agreed with the assessee. Videpara4, the Tribunal has opined: "we have considered the facts of the case and we are of the view that the section and sub-section under which the weighted,deduction is claimed was in force in this assessment year though the rules have been provided later on. Once the rules have been provided, they could govern the pending assessments, as the rules merely give substance to the section which was already there on the statute book. We, therefore, accept the plea of the assessee that the claim of the assessee can be considered under Rule 6-AA. We also agree that the assessee can get weighted deduction in respect of expenses incurred on inspection fees even through the assessee was not having its own organisation for the purpose of inspection. " ( 4 ) KEEPING in view the submissions made at the Bar, in the backdrop of the question referred by the Tribunal, we may frame the issues arising for decision as under: (I) Whether a claim for weighted deduction can be made by reference to Sub-clause (ix), though there was no rule framed attracting applicability of as may be prescribed , the phrase as it occurs in Sub- clause (ix) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 35b. (ii) Whether Rule 6aa having been framed and brought into force w. e. f. 1. 8. 81 can be given a retrospective operation so as to be available w. e. f. 1. 4. 68, the date on which Section 35 B was brought on the statute book. (iii) Whether under Rule 6 AA an asessee can claim weighted deduction in respect of expenses incurred on inspection fees though the assessee was not itself having or maintaining its own organisation for the purpose of inspection. (iv) Whether the claim made by the assessee was liable to be considered under Sub-clause (vi) in the event of the same being not admissible under Sub-clause (ix ). ( 5 ) THE text of Section 35b so far as relevant for the purpose of this order is extracted and reproduced hereunder: 35b Export markets development allowances.- (1) (a) Where an assessee, being a domestic company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India, has incurred after the 29th day of Feb. ( 5 ) THE text of Section 35b so far as relevant for the purpose of this order is extracted and reproduced hereunder: 35b Export markets development allowances.- (1) (a) Where an assessee, being a domestic company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India, has incurred after the 29th day of Feb. , 1968 whether directly or in association with any other person, any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) referred to in Clause (b) he shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to one and one-third times the amount of such expenditure incurred during the previous year : Provided that in respect of the expenditure incurred after the 28th day of Feb. , 1973 by a domestic company, being a company in which the public are substantially interested, the provisions of this clause shall have effect as if for the words " one and one third times," the words " one and one-half times" had been substituted. " (b) The expenditure referred to in Clause (a) is that incurred wholly and exclusively on- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (vi) furnishing to a person outside India samples or technical information for the promotion of the sale of goods, services or faciltities; xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (ix) such other activities for the promotion of the sale outside India of such goods, services or facilities as may be prescribed. ( 6 ) THE provision has undergone changes from time to time. For our purposes it would suffice to note that Section 35b was introduced into the body of the main Act by the Finance Act, 1968 w. e. f. 1. 4. 1968. The words before the first day of March, 1983 in Section 35b (1 ) (a) were inserted by the Finance Act, 1983 w. e. f. 1. 4. 1983. Subclauses (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) were omitted by the Finance ( No. 2) Act 1980 from 1. 4. 81. ( 7 ) THE Rule 6aa of Income-tax Rules, 1962 reads as under: 6aa. 4. 1983. Subclauses (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) (viii) were omitted by the Finance ( No. 2) Act 1980 from 1. 4. 81. ( 7 ) THE Rule 6aa of Income-tax Rules, 1962 reads as under: 6aa. For the purposes of Sub-clause (ix) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 35b, other activities for the promotion of the sale outside India of the goods, services or facilities which the assessee deals in or provides in the course of his business shall be as follows, namely: (A) conducting of pre-investment surveys or the preparation of feasibility studies or project reports. Provided that the pre-investment surveys are conducted or the feasibility studies are made or the project reports are prepared on the request in writing made by the Central Government or a foreign party to whom such goods, services or facilities are likely to be sold orprovided by the assessee; (b) maintenance outside India of a warehouse for the promotion of the sale outside India of such goods; (e) maintenance of a laboratory or other facilities for quality control or inspection of such goods: Provided that in acase where only part of the sales is made outside India the amount of expenditure incurred on the maintenance of such laboratory or other facilities which shall qualify for deduction under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 35b shall not exceed the amount which bears the same proportion as the value of the turnover in respect of such exports bears to the turnover of the business in respect of which the laboratory or other facilities are maintained; (d) purchase of foreign trade periodicals or journals related to the business of the assessee; (e) litigation outside India for the purposes of the protection of the business interests of the assessee or of trading activities relating to the goods services or facilities which the assessee deals in or provides in the course of his business. ( 8 ) CLAUSE (e) was inserted by the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 1982 w. e. f. 27. 5. 82. Rule 6aa itself was inserted by the Income-tax ( Eighth Amendment) Rules, 1981 w. e. f. 1. 8. 1981. It is not given a retrospective operation. ( 8 ) CLAUSE (e) was inserted by the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 1982 w. e. f. 27. 5. 82. Rule 6aa itself was inserted by the Income-tax ( Eighth Amendment) Rules, 1981 w. e. f. 1. 8. 1981. It is not given a retrospective operation. ( 9 ) QUESTIONS (i) and (ii) So far as retrospective operation of Rule 6aa is concerned, we are very clear in our mind that it cannot have applicability to any claim arising before the date of enactment of the Rule. The Parliament when it enacted Sub-clause (ix) chose not to describe or specify the nature or character of the goods, services or facilities as would be covered by the said provision. The power was delegated to the rule making authority. The Parliament knew that the benefit of the provision would not be available to the claimant unless and until the description or nature and character of such goods, services or facilities was prescribed. The delegated power of legislation was not exercised until 1. 8. 1981. If the rule making authority intended to confer the benefit thereof from a back date it should have said so specifically but it did not. It was not disputed at the Bar that Rule 6aa has not been expressly given a retrospective operation. ( 10 ) IN CWT v. Shawaran Kumar Sarup, 1972 (210) ITR 886, the following passage from the Salmond on Jurisprudence has been quoted with approval (at page 182): "the law of procedure may be defined as that branch of the law which governs the process of litigation. It is the law of actions -jus quod ad actiones pertirnt - using the term action in a wide sense to include all legal proceedings, civil or criminal. All the residue is substantive law, and relates, not to the process of litigation, but to its purposes and subject-matter. Substantive law is concerned with the ends which the administration of justice seeks; procedural law deals with the means and instruments by which those ends are to be attained. The latter regulates the conduct and relations of Courts and litigants in respect of the litigation itself; the former determines their conduct and relations in respect of the matters litigated. " ( 11 ) RULE 6aa certainly does not belong to the domain of procedurallaw. The latter regulates the conduct and relations of Courts and litigants in respect of the litigation itself; the former determines their conduct and relations in respect of the matters litigated. " ( 11 ) RULE 6aa certainly does not belong to the domain of procedurallaw. What will be taxed and what not and what shall be entitled to a deduction or a weighted deduction are the topics all falling within the field of substantive law. A substantive law cannot be retrospective in operation unless made to operate so either specifically or bynecessary implication. In the field of substantive law presumption is against retrospectivity. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service very many well-settled principles of law touching interpretation of tax statutes in support of his plea. A charging section is to be strictly construed, but a provision providing for deduction or exemption in favour of the assessee particularly a provision enacted to promote the growth of a class of assesseeshas to beliberally construed. The object of the provision as indicated by the speech of the Finance Minister moving the amendment whereby Section 35-B was brought on the statute book and as suggested by the language of the provision itself is that it was intended to provide an incentive to the assessees so as to develop export market. The provision has to be so construed as to confer the contemplated benefit on the assessee so as to achieve the object sought to be achieved. The learned Counsel further submitted that the legislative history shows that Section 80 HHC was brought on the statute book w. e. f. 1. 4. 83 and then Section 35-B was deleted. The legislative scheme adopted is suggestive of legislative inteilion - to confer such advantanges on the assessee as would result in encouraging export business and earning profits therefrom which will be to the country s benefit. ( 13 ) IN all fairness to the learned Counsel for the assessee we have placed on record in the proceeding para the gist of his submissions. However, the law is well settled that where the language is plain, it can neither be streched wider nor squeezed narrowly with an eye on assumed or implied intention of the Legislature. In a fiscal law much scope for interpretative process is not available if the language of an enactment permits of no ambiguity. However, the law is well settled that where the language is plain, it can neither be streched wider nor squeezed narrowly with an eye on assumed or implied intention of the Legislature. In a fiscal law much scope for interpretative process is not available if the language of an enactment permits of no ambiguity. ( 14 ) THE Parliament having specifically enumerated the categories of the expenditure entitled to weighted deduction by cataloguing the same as Sub-clauses (i) to (viii) ofclause- (b), inserted a residuary entry by enacting Sub-clause (ix ). Sub- clause (ix) does not define any class by itself. It has been left to be prescribed subject to an over-riding consideration that the activities to be prescribed in exercise of delegated legislative power must result in promotion of the sale outside India of goods,services or facilities. ( 15 ) SUB-CLAUSE (ix) as enacted is a piece of conditional and delegated legislation both. The Parliament having laid down the broad feature of "other activities , have left them to be enumerated by the executive. However, the availability of benefit under Sub-clause (ix) is dependent on or conditioned by the same being prescribed. Unless the activities are prescribed in exercise of the delegated power of legislation, the sub-clause shall not come into operation. ( 16 ) IN Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills v. Bangalore Corporation, AIR 1962 SC 1263 , 1266 the validity of a power conferred on a Municipal Corporation to levy octroi "on other articles" not specified in the schedule but "which may be approved by the Corporation by an order in this behalf" came up for the consideration of their Lordships. It was held that the provision was valid as it was more in the nature of conditional delegation. In Jalan Trading Company v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 691, 703 power to grant exemption under Section 36 of the Bonus Act, was held to be conditional legislation. ( 17 ) NEITHER Sub-clause (ix) provides that such other activities on being prescribed shall relate back to the date of coming into force of Section 35-B itself nor does the legislative power exercised by the delegatee gives the prescription of activities a retrospective effect. ( 18 ) WE therefore hold that Rule 6 AA is not retrospective in operation. It does not apply to events happening before the date of its enactment i. e. 1. 8. ( 18 ) WE therefore hold that Rule 6 AA is not retrospective in operation. It does not apply to events happening before the date of its enactment i. e. 1. 8. 81. ( 19 ) QUESTION- (III) It was agreed between the Counsel for the parties that the claim made by the assessee was to be judged by reference to Clause (e) of Rule 6aa. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the department submitted that the language of Clause (e) itself suggests that it contemplates a laboratory and other facilities for quality control or inspection of such goods being maintained by the assessee. If the assessee is not maintaining any such laboratory or any such facility by himself merely because he incurs expenditure by way of inspection fee paid to an agency which has a Lab or other facility then such expenditure would not be covered by Clause (e ). ( 20 ) THE learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the provision was required to be liberally construed and therefore no distinction can be drawn whether the laboratory or other facility was being maintained by the assessee or not. The emphasis was on the expenses being incurred and hence so long as the expenses were referable to quality control or inspection of such goods, the same were liable to be taken into consideration for weighted deduction. ( 21 ) INVIEW of what we have already stated in para No. 15 above, as we are of the opinion that the language of Clause (e) of Rule 6 AA is clear and explicit, and leaves no scope for any ambiguity, there is no scope for admitting an expenditure by way of inspection fee paid to a third party for weighted deduction. The laboratory or other facilities for quality control or inspection of goods has to be maintained by the assessee so as to fall within the scope of the provision. ( 22 ) QUESTIW- (IV) The plea for admitting the expenditure by reference to Sub-clause (vi) in the event of same being excluded from Sub-clause (ix) needs a short and summary disposal. An amount paid by way of inspection fee does not amount to furnishing to a person outside India technical information for the promotion of the sale of such goods etc. An amount paid by way of inspection fee does not amount to furnishing to a person outside India technical information for the promotion of the sale of such goods etc. We agree with the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue with his submission that the expenditure might have resulted in the sale of goods referable to a particular transaction but the expenditure cannot be said to have been incurred for the promotion of the sale of such goods. ( 23 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in holding that Rule 6aa of the Income-tax Rules made effective from 1. 8. 81 was applicable to Assessment year 1979-80 and weighted deduction under Section 35-B of inspection fee was admissible to the assessee. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative i. e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to the costs.