https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174039 Bamboo mat was held not to be "forest-produce" under section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The statutory definition was construed with the related definitions of "timber" and "tree", and the Court declined to expand it to cover a commercially new and distinct product made by human labour merely because bamboo is included within "tree". Where the legislature has defined a term, the defined meaning must be applied rather than the general understanding of the word. The confiscation order therefore could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:59:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174039 Bamboo mat was held not to be "forest-produce" under section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The statutory definition was construed with the related definitions of "timber" and "tree", and the Court declined to expand it to cover a commercially new and distinct product made by human labour merely because bamboo is included within "tree". Where the legislature has defined a term, the defined meaning must be applied rather than the general understanding of the word. The confiscation order therefore could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174039