Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) The impregnated cotton fabrics under reference answer to the description of the term cotton fabrics as set out in tariff Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff. He has pleaded that the wording used in the tariff item should be given widest meaning so as to cover the species of the goods described in the tariff entry and that the entry should be read as the layman would road it. He has pleaded that as held in the case of Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa 1975 (2) SCR 138, the entry should be interpreted not with dictionary in one hand and the Tariff in the other hand. According to him, cotton predominates by weight in the case of the assessee's goods and these are also flexible and answer to the description of term cotton fabrics; tariff Item 19 covers all varieties of cotton fabrics and we should go by the intrinsic qualities of the material. He further stated that the concept of textiles is not a static one and should take into account various scientific advances made in this field. The fabrics may be for industrial use and so long as the people in particular trade treat these goods as fabrics, the same should be assessed under tariff Item 19. He has pleaded that the goods dealt with in the case of Multiple Fabrics : 1984 (16) E.L.T. 301 were quite different from those in the instant case. In that case the PVC resin was the predominant constituent being 56.3% and similarly in the case of International Conveyors cited by the appellants : 1983 E.L.T. 1216, PVC resin constituted 60% of the material of the goods and, therefore, the reliance of M/s. Bakelite Hylam on these judgments was misplaced.

(ii) Shri Lakshmikumaran further stated that the way the entry 19-III, CET was worded, the term plastic material used therein would encompass phenol formaldehyde also. He stated that no doubt resin and plastic as understood in chemical technology are two separate items but plastics is a generic term whereas the term resin represents the species. Term plastics, according to him, as set out in various books on plastics also covers resin. He cited the definitions of plastics etc., as given in ASTM; Hach's Chemical Dictionary; Modern Plastics Technology : Chapter 1; Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technelogy and Plastic Materials by J.A. Brydson p. 587. He further stated the appellants themselves have stated before the lower authority and in the appeal memorandum filed that the fabrics are coated with plastic material and having used the term plastic material with reference to the phenol formaldehyde all along consistently and that it does not now lie in the mouth of M/s. Bakelite Hylam to say that the impregnating material is not plastic but resin. He has pleaded that the term plastics as understood by the layman and in the trade should be made applicable to the entry under 19-III, CBT. He has further pleaded that in the case of Industrial Plastics Corporation : 1983 E.L.T. 425, the Bombay High Court judgment cited by the appellants, the issues were in the context of the interpretation of tariff Item 15A and inasmuch as both the terms resin and plastics have been used in that entry in the technical sense, the terms had to be interpreted in that light in juxtaposition with each other. In the case of tariff item 19-III, the choice is not between the resin and plastics and the entry should be interpreted as the layman would understand it. He further pleaded since items 19-III and 15A are differently worded, the interpretation given in the context of tariff Item 15A should not be made applicable in the context of Item No. 19-III, CET.

(i) The following artificial or synthetic resins and plastics materials and cellulose esters and ethers, in any form, whether solid, liquid or as pasty, or as powder, granules or flakes, or in the form of moulding powders, namely; ...

It is seen that the context of this item requires interpretation of the items covered therein based on the technical nomenclature adopted in the description of the tariff Item. It is a well settled principle of law that unless a context requires interpretation of a tariff entry based on technical meaning, the entry should be interpreted as the layman would understand or those who are dealing with the items covered under a particular tariff entry in the trade would understand. The wording of tariff Item 15A clearly calls for an interpretation based on the chemical composition of the products covered therein and how the terms used therein are described in the technical books of polymer science. It is in this context that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has interpreted the scope of term Resin vis-a-vis Plastics in the case of Chemical & Fibres India Limited. Therefore the distinction between the resin and the plastics given in the context of 15A, CET is peculiar to the words and terms used under this tariff entry and relevant only for interpreting this tariff entry. Terms and expression used in tariff entry 19-III, CET have to be interpreted as contended and conceded by both the parties as a layman or ordinary persons dealing with the goods covered under this entry would understand. Heavy reliance has been placed on the observations of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemicals and Fibres of India Limited v. Union of India and Ors. 1982 E.L.T. 917 (Bombay). In that case the question was whether polymer chips would fall within. T.I. 15A. The Hon'ble High Court rejected the contention that for the purpose of sub-item (1) of that Item, synthetic resins must be construed as synonymous with plastic materials. With reference to the argument that the Explanation under that Item provided that for the purpose of sub-item (2), "plastics" meant the various artificial or synthetic resins or plastic material included in sub-item (1), the Hon'ble High Court, in para 46 of the judgment, pointed out that the Explanation was only for the purpose of sub-item (2), and that it would be wholly improper to decide the scope of sub-item (1) by applying that Explanation. It is seen from this that even as between two sub-items of the same Tariff Item, the Hon'ble High Court was not prepared to apply the Explanation relating to one sub-item to the interpretation of the other sub-item. Much less can it be contended that the scope of other Tariff items such as 19 or 22 B could be interpreted by applying the meaning given in one sub-item of Item 15 A. Therefore the interpretation given in the context of Item 15A CET in the judgment cited will not be relevant for interpreting Item 19-III, CET.