Conjunctive reading of a duty concession notification denied eligibility where both purchase-year conditions were not met.

The explanation to Notification No. 90/70-C.E. was construed strictly, and the word "and" was held to retain its conjunctive meaning. A tea factory had to satisfy the requirement of purchasing not less than two-thirds of its green leaf from outside sellers during both the relevant financial year and the immediately preceding year. The language was clear and workable when read together, and no absurdity justified substituting "or" for "and". The assessee therefore did not qualify for the duty concession under the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the word "and" in the explanation to Notification No. 90/70-C.E. should be read as "or" so as to extend the duty concession to the assessee.

Analysis: The explanation required a tea factory to have purchased not less than two-thirds of its green leaf from outside sellers during both the financial year 1963-64 and the financial year immediately preceding the year in which duty was levied. The language was clear and workable when read conjunctively, and it did not produce any absurd or unintelligible result. The circumstances did not justify rewriting the notification by substituting "or" for "and".

Conclusion: The word "and" could not be read as "or". The assessee was not entitled to the concession under the notification.

---