1988 (1) TMI 246 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 169/77-Cus. for rubber blankets used in textile printing.
2. Interpretation of the term "printing industry" within the context of the notification.
3. Whether textile printing falls under the ambit of the printing industry.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Notification No. 169/77-Cus. for rubber blankets used in textile printing:
The respondents imported Darey Concard blankets and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 169/77-Cus., which allowed exemption for rubber blankets used in the printing industry. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit, stating the goods were for the textile industry, not the printing industry. The Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision, interpreting "printing industry" broadly to include textile printing. The Revenue contended that the goods were correctly assessed at the standard rate since textile printing does not fall under the printing industry as per the notification.

2. Interpretation of the term "printing industry" within the context of the notification:
The relevant notification in force was 169/77-Cus., dated 6-8-1977, which provided a concessional rate of duty for rubber blankets used in the printing industry. The notification was later superseded by Notification No. 192/78, which broadened the scope to include printing on any surface. The Revenue argued that the benefit under Notification No. 192/78 could not be applied retrospectively to the earlier imports. The Tribunal examined the definition of "printing" and "printing industry" in various dictionaries and legal precedents, concluding that the term "printing industry" should be interpreted based on its commercial sense, as understood in ordinary parlance.

3. Whether textile printing falls under the ambit of the printing industry:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in M.S. Company Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasized that the term "industry" should be interpreted in its commercial sense. The Tribunal observed that different sectors of the industry are named based on the products they produce. Textile printing is considered a part of the textile industry, not the printing industry. The Tribunal noted that in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, textile printing is described as a process within the textile industry. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the printing industry does not cover textile printing, and the imported rubber blankets meant for textile printing were not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 169/77-Cus.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the Collector (Appeals) erred in including textile printing within the ambit of the printing industry. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restored the order of the Assistant Collector, denying the benefit of Notification No. 169/77-Cus. to the imported rubber blankets used in textile printing. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed.