AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (2) TMI 332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....available to the Respondent and as the goods are not specified in the Schedule of the said Notification. In reply, the Respondent company pleaded that the Respondent Company's regulators fall under tariff description of Tariff Item 33 as the same was introduced by Budget 1977 and the Respondent had contended that the respondent is entitled to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-6-1976. The learned Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta XV Division, while adjudicating the case, held that the goods were not specified in the Table annexed to Notification No. 198/76 and hence not eligible for the benefit of tax relief and a demand of duty was raised. The Respondent being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, had filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta, which was acceptable. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the Revenue has come in appeal before this court as an appellant. 3. Shri A.K. Saha, S.D.R. has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He reiterated the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal. He has pleaded that in the Notification No. 198/76. dated 16-6-1976 at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....82 in Civil Appeal No. 1059 of 1965 (page 274). He has also referred to the following judgments on the interpretation of statute : E.L.T. 34 Madras in Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1983 E.L.T. 24 Delhi Modi Rubber v. U.O.I 1983 E.L.T. 597 CEGAT, Delhi Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excite, Bombay. He stated that the clearance period was from 7th Feb. 1979 to 31st ......... He has submitted that in view of the above judgments, the appeal should be accepted and the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) should be quashed. 4.  In reply, Shri S.R. Guha, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, has submitted that the regulators were never cleared separately but were always cleared simultaneously with the electric fans. He has also pleaded that price list of the fans is inclusive of the cost of the regulators. He has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd., Hyderabad v. Government of India, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh has held that the fans are understood in the popular sense and commercial transactions. In a transaction regarding the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of India is a decision of the Tribunal in view of the Supreme Court judgment. The respondent should be given the benefit of Notification No. 198/76 and regulator should be treated as part of a fan. He has further submitted that regulator is fitted with a table fan and there the Revenue has not disputed at all and it amounts to discrimination between a ceiling and a table fan. He has further pleaded that there is no dispute as to the classification of regulator. It falls under Tariff Item 33. He has pleaded that in view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment and other judgments referred to by him the appellant's appeal should be dismissed. 5.  In reply, Shri Saha has again referred to the Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-6-1976 and has pleaded that the words 'all sorts" do not include regulators and the appeal filed by the Revenue should be accepted. 6.  After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the regulator is an indispensable part of a fan and the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16th June, 1976. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or and the fans as such can be operated without the regulator and the regulator is meant only to regulate the speed of the fan but it cannot be said that the fan does not work without regulator and, therefore, the regulator cannot be considered as integral part of the fan. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant has profusely relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Union of India, (2) 1981 E.L.T. 284 (Del.) Ranganathan, J. speaking for the court observed that the speed regulator is not an integral or indispensable part of the electric fan and it cannot be said that a fan without speed regulator is no fan at all. The learned judge was apparently influenced by the circumstance that the amendment which was inserted with effect from 19-6-1977 including regulators, excluded the regulator from the purview of the fan anterior to 19-6-1977 by implication. We are not inclined to agree with the view of the Delhi High Court. It is too late in the day to say that the ceiling fan is operated without regulator. It may be that sometimes in the past the ceiling fans were manufactured and they were operated without regu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of the I.S.I. specification 374-76 are set out herein. Item 9.2 states that the regulator shall have an 'off' position preferably next to the lowest speed contact. Item 10.1 under the caption "starting" states that the fan shall be capable of starting up from rest with the regulator, if any, at the lowest speed step when 85% of the rated voltage or 35% of the lowest voltage in the voltage range is applied. Item 11.1 says that the motor of the fan of a particular size and model and its associated regulator and set of blades shall be interchangeable such that the performance of the fan keeps within limits specified in this standard. 12.1 provides that precautions shall be taken in the manufacture of fans and regulators to ensure a reasonable degree of....... all speeds. These specifications clearly disclose that the fan is always understood as being associated or accompanied by regulator and regulator can be considered as an integral part of fan. The specifications furnish a guidance .to several components of the commodity and their functioning. In view of the "off" position fixed in the regulator the fan cannot function unless the regulator is set in motion and as such the regu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....follows at page 1639 : "It will, therefore, be seen that the word 'vegetable' in item 6 of Sch. I to the Act must be construed as understood in common parlance and it must be given its popular sense, meaning 'that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it', and so construed, it denotes those classes of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or in a farm and are used for the table. Now, obviously green ginger is a vegetable grown in a kitchen garden or in a farm and is used for the table. It may not be used as a principal item of the meal but it certainly forms part of the meal as a subsidiary item. It is an item which is ordinarily sold by a vegetable vendor and both the vegetable vendor who every day deals in vegetables and the house-wife who daily goes to the market to purchase vegetables would unhesitatingly regard green ginger as vegetable." The same principle has been reiterated in AIR 1977 S.C. 597 (4) supra. 9. Bearing in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, it has to be seen how the fans are understood in the popular sense and commercial transactions. In a transaction r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eported in S.V.P. Cement Co. v. G.M.S. Pvt. Ltd., (7) AIR 1976 S.C. 2521 the Supreme Court held that the Parliamentary exposition as revealed in the later Act can be considered to clarify any doubt or ambiguity in the prior Act in the context of considering whether a Head Lessee in respect of mines and minerals under an Indenture of Lease executed prior to the date of vesting of mines under Bihar Land Reforms Act, does not become a tenure-holder consequent on vesting under the Act. At page 2527 the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "We also find ourselves unable to accept this contention and to disregard the well settled cannon that sometimes light may be thrown upon the meaning of an Act by taking into consideration 'Parliamentary expositions' as revealed by the later Act which amends the earlier one to clear up any doubt or ambiguity. The principle has to be followed where, as in the instant case, a particular construction of the earlier Act will render the later incorporated Act ineffectual or otiose or inept. [See Kirkness v. John Hudson & Co., 1955 AC 696 (HL). This view also receives support from the decision of this Court in Yogendra Nath Naskar v. C.I.T., Calcutta (19....