1985 (3) TMI 67 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of PVC coated Periglass Sleevings or Silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings under the Indian Customs Tariff.
2. Whether these items fall under Item 53 (Textile Manufacture) or other entries such as 72-C, 73(1), 82(3), or 87.
3. The role of popular versus technical definitions in tariff classifications.
4. The jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the decisions of the Customs authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of PVC coated Periglass Sleevings or Silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings:
The primary issue in these appeals was whether the items imported by the respondent, specifically PVC coated Periglass Sleevings or Silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings, should be classified under Item 53 of the Indian Customs Tariff, which pertains to "Textile Manufacture not otherwise specified." The Assistant Collector of Customs initially assessed these items under Entry 82(3), which deals with synthetic resins and plastic materials, and this assessment was upheld by the Appellate Collector of Customs. However, the Ministry of Finance later classified these items under Entry 53.

2. Whether these items fall under Item 53 (Textile Manufacture) or other entries such as 72-C, 73(1), 82(3), or 87:
The court examined whether the items in question could be considered textiles. The learned Single Judge held that the items should not be classified under Entry 53 and directed the authorities to reconsider whether they fall under Entries 72-C, 73(1), or 87. The relevant entries were:
- Item 53: Textile Manufacture not otherwise specified.
- Item 73(1): Electrical instruments, apparatus, and appliances not otherwise specified.
- Item 82(3): Synthetic resins and plastic materials.
- Item 87: All other articles not otherwise specified.

The court had to determine if the Periglass Sleevings, which are fabric materials coated with PVC, could be construed as textiles. The court referred to various dictionary definitions and technical descriptions to understand the term "textile."

3. The role of popular versus technical definitions in tariff classifications:
The court emphasized that in the absence of a statutory definition, terms in tax statutes should be understood in their popular sense, as used in common parlance, rather than their technical or scientific meanings. This principle was upheld by the Supreme Court in several cases, including Indo-International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., and Ramavatar Budhiaprasad v. Asst. Sales Tax Officer, Akola. The court concluded that in common parlance, glass fibre or fabric made of glass fibre is not understood as a textile.

4. The jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the decisions of the Customs authorities:
The appellants argued that the classification of items is a matter for the Customs authorities and should not be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the court held that it could intervene if the authorities' decision was based on an erroneous view or improper interpretation of statutory expressions. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., emphasizing that fiscal legislation should provide clear definitions to avoid confounding controversies.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision that the PVC coated Periglass Sleevings or Silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings do not fall under Item 53 of the Customs Tariff. The matter was remitted to the authorities to determine the appropriate classification under Entries 72-C, 73(1), or 87. The court dismissed the appeals with costs and directed the authorities to pass final orders within six months.