Unified reading of mill board and straw board proviso: one-third material limit required fresh factual determination.

Clause (i) of the proviso to the notification defining mill board and straw board was held applicable to both products, because the definitions did not expressly exclude other materials and the proviso, read with the Explanation, supported a unified construction. Clause (ii) was also acknowledged as applying to both definitions, reinforcing that reading. The operative factual question remained whether the other material used in manufacture exceeded one-third of the total weight, since that finding had not been made by the Central Government and was material to clause (i). The revision therefore required fresh determination on compliance with the one-third limit.

---

---

Issues: Whether clause (i) of the proviso to the notification defining mill board and straw board applied to mill board as well as straw board, and whether the matter required reconsideration on the factual question whether the material used exceeded one-third by weight.

Analysis: The definitions of mill board and straw board did not expressly exclude the use of other materials, and the proviso, on its language and setting, was held applicable to both clauses of the Explanation. The Court also noted that clause (ii) of the proviso was admittedly applicable to both definitions, supporting a nified reading of the proviso. However, the factual question whether the other material used in manufacture exceeded one-third of the total weight had not been decided by the Central Government, though it was material to the operation of clause (i).

Conclusion: Clause (i) of the proviso applies to mill board as well as straw board, and the revision had to be decided afresh on the factual issue of compliance with the one-third limit.

---