2001 (8) TMI 122 - SC - Customs

Whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/95-Cus., dated 16-3-1995, as amended, is available to the goods i.e. printed drawings, designs and plans under the Foreign Transfer of Technology Agreement imported by the respondent? Held that - One of the basic cannon of interpretation of statute is that the legislature intends to ascribe the ordinary common parlance and meaning to the words used therein. In the matter under consideration, the legislature has used the word 'printed books' and clarified it by inclusion of covers - the intent thus seems to be rather obvious to mean books in ordinary sense and not any other meaning. The legislature has also included 'printed manuals' and explained it by express words including those in the loose leaf form with binder . Can the articles imported be termed to be 'printed manuals' in 'loose leaf form with binder', unfortunately, the answer cannot be in the affirmative. It contains specifications in terms of a technology transfer agreement, it is not a collection of various articles in trade journals but a definite importation of technology transfer which obviously was not intended to mean by the user of the word 'manual'. The word 'manual' means and implies a small book for handy use and includes a reference book, a hand-book as also a text book (vide Concise Oxford Dictionary) and on attribution of the same meaning, the words used by the legislature cannot identify to be a product of technology transfer between two countries. Ordinary common parlance ought to be attributed for the expressions used by the legislature and on attribution thereof one cannot possibly come to a conclusion that the exemption notification ever aimed at extending the meaning to the extent as has been effected by the Tribunal. The decision of this Court in Scientific Engineering (supra) has been totally misread and misapplied in the contextual facts - Scientific Engineering (supra) on the contrary lends all possible credence to the contentions as propagated by the appellants and not the respondents. The decisions of this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petro Chemicals 1996 (12) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and H.C.L. Limited v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi 2001 (3) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA do not in any way lend any support to the contentions of the respondent herein by reason of the special fact situation as above and in any event we are not concerned with two notifications, one of which confers benefit on to the assessee. Thus, reliance thereon is totally misplaced in the facts of the matter under consideration. Appeal allowed of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/95-Cus., dated 16-3-1995, as amended, is available to the goods i.e. printed drawings, designs, and plans under the Foreign Transfer of Technology Agreement imported by the respondent.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Exemption Under Notification No. 25/95-Cus.

The primary question for consideration was whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/95-Cus., dated 16-3-1995, as amended, is available for printed drawings, designs, and plans imported under a Foreign Transfer of Technology Agreement. The respondent contended that the imported goods fell under Sl. No. 10 of the Notification, which had a 'Nil' rate of duty, while the Revenue argued that they fell under Sl. No. 15, attracting a 10% ad valorem duty.

Factual Background:
The respondent imported printed drawings, designs, and plans for setting up a plant to manufacture Polyester, Polyester Filament Yarn, and Polyester Staple Fibre. The Revenue classified these goods under Chapter 49.11, valuing them at DM - 32,66,900.00 (equivalent to Rs. 7,50,61,438.00) and imposed penalties for non-payment of duty. The Tribunal, however, concluded that the materials were books under Tariff Item 49.01, falling under Sl. No. 10 of the Exemption Notification, thus exempt from duty.

Interpretation of Terms:
The court had to interpret the terms "printed books," "manuals," "plans," "drawings," and "designs" as used in the notification. The terms "plan," "drawing," and "design" were analyzed for their common meanings and legal definitions, concluding that they had distinct attributes but conveyed a common meaning in the context of the notification.

Attorney General's Argument:
The Attorney General argued that the features of a book in trade parlance included having an author, publisher, price, availability to the public, lack of confidentiality, a subject matter, serially numbered pages, and an ISBN code. The imported goods did not meet these criteria and were instead documentation with vendor's drawings and operating and maintenance manuals.

Tribunal's Reliance on Scientific Engineering House Case:
The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, where it was held that certain documents could collectively be treated as a book. However, the Supreme Court in the present case found that the Tribunal misapplied this decision, as the documents in question did not meet the functional test of being a book.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the imported goods were not "printed books" or "printed manuals" under Sl. No. 10 of the notification but were technical documents related to the transfer of technology, falling under Sl. No. 15. The goods were thus subject to a 10% ad valorem duty. The Tribunal's judgment was reversed, and the Commissioner's order was restored.

Final Judgment:
The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's order was negated. The court answered the question in the negative, ruling that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/95-Cus. was not available to the imported goods. There was no order as to costs.