TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (4) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or called upon the appellants to show cause as to why they cannot be classified under Tariff Item 15(2) 'other sorts' and to levy excise duty at 15 per cent ad valorem(as then stood). The appellants after filing their reply thereto and having had personal hearing, by proceeding dated November 27,1982, the Assistant Collector classified toilet soaps as "other sorts" under Tariff Item 15(2) of the Schedule. On appeal the Collector by Order dated January 21, 1983 classified them under Tariff Item No. 15(1) "household". On second appeal, the CEGAT by its order dated June 20, 1984 reversed the appellate order and upheld the Assistant Collector's order. Same is the case with regard to all other appeals except resultant claim for refund. In 1954 Tariff Item No. 15A was introduced in the First Schedule of the Act thus: "15(A) 'Soap' means all varieties of the product known commercially as Soap- 1, Soap, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power or of steam for heating :- (1) Soap,household and laundry:- (a) Plain bars of not less than one pound in Weight Rupees five & annas Four per cwt. (b)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear higher rate of tariff. The explanatory note appended to the Finance Bill 1964 would furnish the legislative intendment to amend the tariff item and the treatment meted out to toilet soap for tariff purpose. It is accordingly understood by the department and also by the trade circles. The appellants too initially treated toilet soap as other sorts but later, on legal opinion, they claimed them as household soaps. The construction adopted by the tribunal is consistent with the standard works on soaps. M/s. Harish Salve and Ashok Desai, contended that in 1954 toilet soap was treated as an independent tariff sub-item and household and laundry soaps were treated as separate entity and separately subjected to varied rates of tariff. On amendment in 1964 toilet soap was omitted as a separate entity and brought toilet soap as part of genus, namely, soap "household", as toilet soap is always a household soap. Therefore, the reliance by revenue on varied rates of duty or departmental contemporanea expositio have no bearing. The object of classification does not show that toilet soap is not part of the genus, "soap household" unless it is established otherwise. 2. The question, therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., there is no room for applying any of the principles of interpretation which are merely presumption in cases of ambiguity in the statute. The court would interpret them as they stand. The object and purpose has to be gathered from such words themselves. Words should not be regarded as being surplus nor be rendered otiose. Strictly speaking there is no place in such cases for interpretation or construction except where the words of statute admit of two meanings. The safer and more correct course to deal with a question of construction of statute is to take the words themselves and arrive, if possible, at their meaning, without, in the first place, reference to cases or theories of construction. Let us, therefore, consider the meaning of the word soap "household". The word household signifies a family living together. In the simplistic language toilet soap being used by the family as household soap is too simplification to reach a conclusion. Therefore, one has to gather its meaning in the legal setting to discover the object which the Act seeks to serve and the purpose of the amendment brought about. The task of interpretation of the statute is not a mechanical one. It is more than....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1607 (SC)], this Court held that 'Dryer felts' are not textiles. In that context the principle of understanding the meaning of the word in common parlance was adopted. In Indo • International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [(1981) 3 SCR 294 at 297C], this Court held that "it is well settled that in interpreting items in statutes like the Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances resort should be had not to "the scientific and technical" meaning of the terms or expression used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them (emphasis supplied). If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. In that case the clinical syringes manufactured and sold by the assessee were not considered as 'glassware' falling within Entry 39 of the First Schedule of the Act. In comme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ether the cotton textiles manufactured by handlooms are entitled to exemption, this court held to be positive. It may be noted that marketability of the product is an essential facet to attract dutiability of the goods under the Act. The general purpose or common use of the product though may not be conclusive but may be relevant to classify it in a tariff entry when it was not specifically enumerated in a particular entry or sub-entry. The construction of the word must yield in favour of promoting and effectuating the object and purpose of the Act. In Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India 6 Ors. [(1976) 2 SCR 98 == 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (SC)] this Court found the entry not in residuary but placed in the parentage and relieved it from orphanage. In Anant B. Timbodia v. Union of India, [1992 (1) Scale 527 = 1993 (63) E.L.T. 401 (SC)] this Court was to consider whether imported cloves fell within Item 169 in List 8 of Appendix 6 or Para 167 of Chapter 8 of Import and Export Policy 1990-93. Para 167 of Chapter 8 of Import Policy clearly provided the heading - Import of Spices includes cloves, cinnamon/cassia, nutmeg and Mace. Therefore, it was held that import permit is necessary. The d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, 1984 at p. 529 relied on by the appellants in this case too. In Ajoy Kumar Bannerjee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [(1984) 3 SCC 127] relied on by Sri Ganguli in this behalf renders no assistance to the Revenue. Therein the question was the object of delegated legislation. Therein the themorandum appended to the Bill incorporating Section 16 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 was considered in the context of fixation of the pay scales of the employees. The doctrine of reading down, placing reliance on Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. [(1987) 3 SCC 279], also is of no assistance to the Revenue. The doctrine of reading down has been applied only .to sustain the constitutionality of the statute which question is not before us. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in ascertaining the meaning of the word or a clause or sentence in the statute in its interpretation, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible. It is no doubt true that the doctrine of Noscitur A Sociis, meaning thereby, that it is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toilet soap is a household soap had arisen within a short period after the Amendment Act, 1964 came into force. Therefore, the understanding by the executive and its interpretation in bringing toilet soap in sub-item (2) "other sorts" instead of Item (1) "household" being of formative period of statutory operation the doctrine became inapplicable. 7. The ratio in Indo Metal case, therefore, is inapplicable. As rightly contended by Sri Ganguli that the doctrine of placement of a particular goods in a particular tariff item or residuary i.e. parentage or orphanage i.e. in placement of toilet soaps in either sub-items is not attracted to the facts as it is not a case of residuary items but of sub-classification within the same item. 8. Thus considered in the legal setting and commercial parlance we are of the considered view that "toilet soap" being of everyday household use for the purpose of the bath and having removed its separate identity which it enjoyed preceding amendment and having been not specifically included in "other sorts", it took its shelter in commercial parlance under "household". As stated if anybody goes to the market and asks for toilet soap he must ask only....