1983 (4) TMI 264 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of exemption under entry No. 21 of Notification No. 55/75-C.E. for engraved copper rollers or cylinders for use in textile industry.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT NEW DELHI, the dispute revolved around the interpretation of entry No. 21 of Notification No. 55/75-C.E., which pertained to the exemption of engraved copper rollers or cylinders for use in the textile industry. The appellants, who manufactured polished copper cylinders for printing textiles, argued that the word "or" in the entry meant a disjunctive interpretation, qualifying only rollers and not cylinders. They contended that the word "copper" qualified both rollers and cylinders, while "Engraved" only qualified rollers. The Department's representative countered this by emphasizing that the context of the entry required only rollers and cylinders used in the printing process by the textile industry to be covered. The Department relied on the principle of nocitur a sociis to argue that rollers and cylinders were analogous and should be interpreted accordingly. The Tribunal analyzed various legal references regarding the interpretation of the word "or" and concluded that the entry required three conditions to be fulfilled for exemption: the items should be made of copper, engraved, and for use in the textile industry. Since the copper cylinders in question were not engraved and could not be used by the textile industry in their un-engraved state, the Tribunal held that they did not qualify for exemption under the entry.

The Tribunal considered the appellants' argument regarding the disjunctive interpretation of the word "or" and the Department's reliance on the principle of nocitur a sociis to interpret the entry. The Tribunal referred to legal authorities and established that the word "or" could be interpretative or expository based on the context in which it was used. By dissecting the entry into distinct parts as suggested by the appellants, the Tribunal found inconsistencies and incongruities in the interpretation. The Tribunal emphasized that the entry required all three conditions of being made of copper, engraved, and for use in the textile industry to be met for exemption. Since the copper cylinders were not engraved and unusable by the textile industry in their current state, the Tribunal ruled against granting them exemption under the entry.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal based on the interpretation of entry No. 21 of Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the specific context of legal provisions and the necessity of fulfilling all prescribed conditions for claiming exemptions. The decision underscored the significance of statutory interpretation in determining the applicability of exemptions under excise duty notifications.