Common parlance test excludes prawns and shrimps from "fish", and post-repeal cess levies are invalid.

An undefined commodity description in a taxing statute is construed by common parlance and commercial understanding, so prawns and shrimps were treated as distinct from "fish" and outside the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 Schedule. Cess therefore could not be levied on that basis. The Act's repeal with effect from 25.09.2006 also meant that no cess could validly be imposed on exports made after repeal, and post-repeal levies were without authority of law. The refund claims based on such levies were accordingly sustainable, and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prawns and shrimps fall within the expression "fish" in the Schedule to the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 so as to attract cess under section 3 of that Act; (ii) Whether cess could validly be levied on exports made after the repeal of the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940.

Issue (i): Whether prawns and shrimps fall within the expression "fish" in the Schedule to the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 so as to attract cess under section 3 of that Act.

Analysis: The expression "fish" was not defined in the Act, so the ordinary and commercial meaning had to be applied. On the common parlance test, fish and prawns/shrimps are distinct commodities, and biological classification also shows that fish are vertebrates while prawns and shrimps are crustaceans. The classification of marine products in other enactments further supported the distinction between fish and prawns/shrimps. The Court accepted the reasoning of the earlier decisions relied upon and found no basis to treat prawns and shrimps as fish.

Conclusion: Prawns and shrimps do not fall within the expression "fish" in the Schedule to the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940, and cess could not be levied on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether cess could validly be levied on exports made after the repeal of the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940.

Analysis: The Act stood repealed with effect from 25.09.2006. Once the charging statute had been repealed, no cess could be levied on exports effected thereafter. Any such levy was without authority of law, and the refund claims rejected on that basis were rightly allowed in appeal.

Conclusion: Cess levied on exports made after the repeal was invalid and the exporters were entitled to refund.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) were sustained, and the Department's appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a taxing statute, an undefined commodity expression must be construed according to common parlance and commercial understanding, and a levy cannot be extended beyond the plain scope of the charging provision; after repeal of the charging statute, no tax or cess can be imposed for subsequent transactions.

---