Distinct meaning for "sort" and "variety" under a fiscal notification upheld, defeating a narrower exemption reading.

A fiscal notification using both "sort" and "variety" must be read as giving each expression distinct effect, because treating them as interchangeable would render one word redundant. On that construction, the exemption limit for trade samples of cotton fabrics was to be applied with reference to each sort or variety separately, and not confined to the narrower revenue reading. The lower appellate authority's view that "variety" covered different kinds of fabrics as understood in trade was upheld, and the duty demand based on the narrower interpretation was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of Notification No. 258/82, the exemption limit for trade samples of cotton fabrics was to be computed separately for each sort or variety of fabric, and whether the word "variety" could be confined to the same meaning as "sort".

Analysis: The notification used both expressions, "sort" and "variety", and they could not be treated as interchangeable without rendering one of them otiose. The presence of two distinct words indicated that each must be given its own meaning. A construction that confined "variety" to "sort" would make the former superfluous, which was impermissible. The lower appellate authority's understanding that "variety" covered different kinds or varieties of fabrics as known in trade was held to be correct.

Conclusion: The exemption under the notification was not limited to the revenue's construction, and the drawal of samples up to 0.1% was to be understood with reference to sort or variety as distinct expressions. The Revenue's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The interpretation adopted by the lower appellate authority was upheld, and the duty demand based on the narrower reading of the notification was not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: When a fiscal notification employs two different expressions, each must be given distinct effect unless the text clearly shows otherwise, and an interpretation that renders one expression redundant must be rejected.

---