Rexine cloth classification and exemption turned on broad reading of "similar products" and rejection of ejusdem generis.

P.V.C. rexine cloth, being a cloth base coated with polyvinyl chloride and bearing the commercial character of artificial leather, was held to fall within leather-cloth under item 38 of Schedule II and not to be exempt as cloth under item 6 of Schedule I. However, the exemption notification of 12 December 1960, which covered canvas cloth, water-proof cloth, tarpaulins and similar products made with cloth as a base in textile mills, power-looms or processing factories, was construed broadly; ejusdem generis was held inapplicable because the listed goods did not form a single genus. Rexine cloth was therefore exempt under the notification.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether P.V.C. rexine cloth was leather-cloth taxable under item 38 of Schedule II, and whether it was exempt as cloth under item 6 of Schedule I; (ii) whether P.V.C. rexine cloth was exempt from sales tax under the notification dated 12th December, 1960.

Issue (i): whether P.V.C. rexine cloth was leather-cloth taxable under item 38 of Schedule II, and whether it was exempt as cloth under item 6 of Schedule I.

Analysis: P.V.C. rexine cloth was found to be a cloth base coated with Polyvinyl Chloride, giving it the appearance and commercial character of artificial leather. On that basis, it fell within the description of leather-cloth in item 38 of Schedule II. It was not pure cloth manufactured in mills or on power-looms or handlooms, nor merely processed cloth within item 6 of Schedule I.

Conclusion: P.V.C. rexine cloth was leather-cloth and was not exempt under item 6 of Schedule I.

Issue (ii): whether P.V.C. rexine cloth was exempt from sales tax under the notification dated 12th December, 1960.

Analysis: The notification exempted canvas cloth, water-proof cloth, tarpaulins and similar products manufactured with cloth as base in textile mills, power-loom factories or processing factories. The expression "similar products" was given a wide meaning, and the rule of ejusdem generis was held inapplicable because the specified articles did not constitute a single genus. P.V.C. rexine cloth, being a cloth-based waterproof product manufactured in processing factories, was held to fall within the notification.

Conclusion: P.V.C. rexine cloth was exempt under the notification dated 12th December, 1960.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that rexine cloth was leather-cloth and not exempt under Schedule I item 6, but that it was exempt under the Government notification of 12th December, 1960.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification exempts specified goods and also extends to "similar products" made with cloth as a base, the expression must receive a broad meaning, and ejusdem generis will not apply unless the specified goods form a clear common genus.

---