Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and Anr. v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. (1989 U.P.T.C. 173), one of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for interpretation of a notification issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules has been held to be that the notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions. If this principle is borne in mind then what I have stated above in the immediately preceding paragraph according to the tradition of our law, primacy is to be given to the text in which the intention of the law giver has been expressed. In putting the said interpretation to the entry in dispute in the manner in which I have done, certainly this Court is not legislating nor it is the function of the Court to legislate also. But no such interpretation can be put as it is either devoid of or is tern of its context. Having regard to the above context in which the entry in dispute finds place, in my opinion, the said entry does and has to take colour from Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of the said entry. Sub-clause (3) of the said entry cannot, in my opinion, be disassociated in any manner and be read seperately from Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of the said entry. Thus Clause (3) of the said entry cannot be read in isolation as it is inlcgrately connected with parts of such machineries as are referred to under Items (1) and (2) of the said entry. In view of what I have demonstrated above and having regard to the principle that the said entry has to be read as a whole and the language used in the entry right up from its heading till last, it would be in consonance with the spirit and the reason of law to hold that only such parts of refrigerator and air-conditioning appliances and machineries as are ordinarily sold or offered for sale attracted duty under Sub-clause (3) of the said entry and not otherwise. This conclusion of mine also finds support for a variety of other reasons which I will hereinafter refer.