2025 (4) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....") impugned order dated 3rd January, 2024. 3. The short issue that arises in the present petition is in respect of the interpretation of the word 'and' appearing in the clause (iv) of Serial No. 13 of Notification No. 11/2014-Customs dated 11th July, 2014, i.e., "Multiple Input/ Multiple Output (MIMO) and Long Term Evolution (LTE) Products". The CESTAT vide the impugned order has interpreted the said terms i.e., MIMO and LTE in conjunction and thereby, held that the subject goods would not be covered in the exclusion clause of the exemption notification. 4. This issue has now been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Air) Chennai -VII Commissionerate, Chennai v. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. in Customs Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unmerited. If the intention of the Central Government was to include products utilizing either MIMO technology or LTE standard or both, the phrase 'MIMO or LTE Products' could have been used. The use of the conjunction 'or' would have naturally encompassed all products with either of the two technologies/standards, and also those products which combine both. There would have been no need to use 'and' in place of 'or', as the latter would inherently fulfill the purpose of including all such categories. To explain in simpler terms, the phrase "MIMO or LTE Products" would mean - products having MIMO technology or products having LTE standard. A product having MIMO technology can have many other technologies, standards, etc., which may also inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es, or phrases. Dictionaries and linguistic principles affirm that "and" denotes addition or combination, unless there is ambiguity or absurdity arising from its literal interpretation. 52. In this regard, it would be relevant to take note of the following passage from G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (15th Edn.): "The word "or" is normally disjunctive and "and" is normally disjunctive but at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature" 53. In the present case, there is no such ambiguity or absurdity. In our view, when all the four entries of Serial No. 13 are analysed, it would lead to only one conclusion that the word "and" is to be read in conjunctive manner only,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... later clarification cannot put fetters on the powers of the Courts or adjudicating authorities, dealing with disputes prior to the amendment so as to have a binding effect on such authorities or on the Courts to hold as correct the clarification as the guiding principle to decide the entry which stood prior to such amendment in its original form. 57. We are of the view that the clarification is brought about in the Statute when there is ambiguity and disputes arise due to such ambiguities. The fact that a clarification is needed to be brought about in the subject entry by the Finance Act, 2021 would point out towards the inherent ambiguity experienced in its interpretation and application which prompted and necessitated the subject amend....