Delegated legislation cannot redefine tariff terms inconsistently with the tariff entry, preserving exemption coverage for semi-rigid PTFE sheets.

Delegated legislation under the Central Excise Rules could not redefine tariff expressions in a way that enlarged the taxable category or narrowed exemption coverage. The Gujarat HC held that the 1978 notification and supporting trade notice, which treated plastic articles failing a modulus-of-elasticity test as "rigid," were inconsistent with the true meaning of Tariff Item 15A(2) and the exemption notification of 29-5-1971. On the proper construction of the tariff, the petitioner's PTFE sheets were semi-rigid, not rigid. The clarification was therefore invalid, the trade notice could not stand, and the exemption benefit remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification of 25-11-1978 and the trade notice of 6-2-1979 were valid in so far as they defined "rigid" and "flexible" articles of plastic for the purpose of Tariff Item 15A(2) and the exemption notification of 29-5-1971.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the meaning of the expressions "rigid" and "flexible" in the tariff entry and the exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned notification inserted an explanation which treated all articles other than those satisfying the stated modulus-of-elasticity test as "rigid". The Court held that this artificial definition was inconsistent with the true meaning of the tariff expressions and with the scheme of Tariff Item 15A(2). Delegated legislation could not redefine the expressions in a manner that enlarged the taxable category contrary to the tariff entry itself. On the proper construction of the tariff, the petitioner's PTFE sheets were semi-rigid and therefore not "rigid".

Conclusion: The notification of 25-11-1978 was invalid and the trade notice implementing it could not be sustained; the petitioner remained entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification of 29-5-1971.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the impugned clarification was struck down, and the respondents were restrained from enforcing it against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated authority exercising exemption-making power cannot, by an explanatory notification, assign to tariff expressions a meaning inconsistent with the tariff entry and thereby alter the scope of exemption.

---