9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the petitioners it is around 510C. The petitioners initially in 1969 submitted a classification list for the goods declaring them as excisable under tariff item l3, Central Excise Tariff which entry covers vegetable products. However, in March 1971 they felt that the hardened oil do not come within the definition of vegetable products as given in tariff item 13 and hence they submitted a classification list claiming that the goods were non-excisable. However, by a letter dated 9-10-74 they explained that before hardened the oils they do carry out certain processes on the oils which would bring them within the scope of tariff item 12, Central Excise Tariff. (Tariff Item 12 covers vegetable non-essential oils) and they stated in thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tariff item 13, Central Excise Tariff covers 'Vegetable Products' and vegetable products has been defined to mean any vegetable oils or fat which has been hardened for human consumption. The petitioners have submitted the impugned goods have a melting point of above 450C. They have filed an affidavit given by Dr. Damascenc Rebelio, Professor of Oil Chemistry and Head of the Department of Oil Fats and Waxes in the University of Bombay who has stated that any vegetable oils hydrogenated to the melting point beyond 410C is unfit for human consumption, the reason befog that the normal body Temperature being 370C it would be difficult for hydrogenated oils with melting point above 410C to be assimilated. Government also observe from the extract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in a Sales Tax case. The meaning attached to a particular item in the Sales Tax Schedule need not necessarily be applicable for construing the meaning of that item under a different Act like Central Excises and Salt Act. In this connection, the following observations of the House of Lords in Macbeth Co. v. Chislett (1910) (A.C. 220 at page 223) could be referred to where the Lord Chancellor has observed as follows:- " and it would be a new terror in the construction of Acts of Parliament if we were required to limit a word to an unnatural sense because in some Act which is not incorporated or referred to such an interpretation is given to it for the purpose of that Act alone." This pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is view has been consistently taken by several Courts including the Supreme Court such as in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1977 S.C. 597), Ramavatar Budhai Prasad v. Asstt. Sales Tax Officer (AIR 1962 S.C. 1325). This principle was well enunciated in the following observation in the case of King v. Planter Nut and Chocolate Company Ltd. (1951 SLR 122) :- "Now the statute affects nearly everyone, the producer, or manufacturer, the importer, wholesaler and retailer, and finally, the consumer who in the last analysis pays the tax. Parliament would not suppose in an Act of this character that manufacturers, producers, importers, consumers, and others who would be affected by the Act, would be botanists. The object of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
