9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppendix 3) in the same I.T.C. Policy, the Tribunal was justified, in face of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union of India and Others v. Gujrat Woollen Felt Mills (1977 E.L.T. J 24) holding that fabrics means woven material), in coming to the conclusion that the general expression fabrics used in serial No. 31 Part B Appendix 2 of I.T.C. Policy 1985-1988 would include fabric of both varieties i.e. woven and non-woven and not be confined to woven fabric only as claimed by the applicant on the grounds that if Serial No. 31 Part B Appendix 2 were to cover both woven and non-woven fabrics the Entry at Serial No. 289 Part-A Appendix 3 would appear to be redundant ? (ii) Whether in view of the declared policy of the Government to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expression fabric occurring in S.No.31, Part B, Appendix 2 of I.T.C. Policy 1985-88 would cover only wovenfabric or both woven and non-woven fabric is not a question of law. It is a well settled principle of construction of law that the words used in a document under construction should be given their plain meaning and all provisions therein should be constructed harmoniously. Reliance placed on Supreme Court s judgement in the case of Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills (1977 E.L.T. 7 24) is misconceived and that judgement has been distinguished on facts with those available in the instant case of the applicant. We are unable to understand how the expression non-woven fabric of a particular variety occurring in S. No. 289, Part A, Append ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt of Law or Equity, what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication. In view of the settled principle, the purported questions of law do not survive. 5. Before parting, we may deal with a grievance in question no.(iii) that the Tribunal while agreeing with the applicant with regard to imposition of penalty has confirmed the heavy fine imposed by the adjudicating authority in lieu of confiscation of the goods. Applicant/Appellant did not make any grievance whatsoever about the heavy redemtion fine. Its prayer was only to set aside and quash the order of the lower authority. Nor was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
