TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s fell within the classification "semi-rigid". It appears that there was a notification dated May 29, 1971 whereby the Government exempted articles made of plastic, all sorts, falling under sub-item (2) of Item 15A of the first Schedule to the said Act, (except rigid plastic boards, sheeting sheets and films, whether laminated or not....). 2. The petitioners sought the benefit of this exemption notification. However, the department would not agree. Finally the petitioners had to file a writ petition in this Court being Misc. Petition No. 1005 of 1974. That petition came to be decided by Bharucha, J., by his order dated February 7/8, 1979 whereby he made the petition absolute and held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion D-822-64T); (ii) the expression "rigid" in relation to an article made of plastic, means all articles other than "flexible" articles as defined in clause (i)." 4.By a trade notice they explained the notification as follows : "(i) Notification No. 198/78-C.E. : An explanation has been inserted at the end of Notification No. 68/71-C.E., dated 29-5-1971 and No. 39/73-C.E., dated 1-3-1978, which lays down norms for determining the "flexible" and "rigid" articles made of plastics falling under T.I. 15A(2) of C.E.T." 5. The effect of this is that what was held to be not "rigid" would become "rigid" by virtue of this definition or norm introduced by the Government. It is this notification which is under challenge in the present p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as understood in its dictionary meaning. There is no reason as to why that meaning should be discarded unless the legislature itself defines in any other manner. 8. Mr. Rana also drew my attention to another case of Bata India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, C.E., Patna, reported in 1978 E.L.T. (J 211). The legal position has been stated at 2 or 3 places in this judgment but I think I would quote the following passage at page 224 which is as follows : "Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules, the Central Government has been authorised to exempt, on such conditions as may be specified in the notification, any excisable goods from the whole or part of the duty leviable on such goods by a notification in the Official Gazette. A plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, that the explanation appended to the impugned notification was merely a condition as contemplated under Rule 8(1) imposed by the Central Government for exemption of certain footwears from the duty leviable on such goods, cannot in view of what I have stated above, be accepted." I understand that this judgment of Patna High Court was accepted by Pendse, J., in the case of Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. v. Supdt., Central Excise and others, reported in 1981 E.L.T. 730 (Bom.) and the same legal position has been reiterated. 9. Mr. Vyas, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Government sought to explain as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t entitled to rely upon any trade meaning or understanding." 11. Secondly, this is exactly what the Government cannot do by virtue of a exemption notification. If there has to be any exemption, or classification that necessarily must be done by the legislature and not by virtue of any power to issue exemption notification under Rule 8(1) or (2) of the Central Excise Rules. 12. Mr. Vyas submits that explanation as provided for, was within the scope of Tariff Items itself and that no further classification was done at all. I am not inclined to accept this submission of Mr. Vyas. The words have not been defined in the Tariff Item. Therefore, Mr. Justice Bharucha had to construe those terms according to its popular meaning or as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
