9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption by process of 'calendering' on a calendering plant situated in the appellant's premises. The Notification 230/77-C.E., dated 15.7.1977 issued by Central Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, exempts from the whole of the duty of Excise, 'unprocessed' cotton-fabric, falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Act, which is manufactured on power looms (without spinning or processing plants) installed and worked with the permission of the Textile Commissioner. Likewise, Notification No. 231/77-C.E., dated 15.7.1977 exempts such cotton fabric from payment of the additional duties of excise. 2. The question in the appeal is whether such cotton fabric ceases to be "unprocessed" cotton fabric if it is subjected to calendering. The Tribunal has held in the affirmative and has upheld the levy of duty imposed on the appellant. We have heard Sri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri A.K. Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue. 3. The facts which are not in dispute may briefly be stated. The Central Excise authorities held appellant to have contravened the provisions of the relevant ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubberising or dyeing and organdie processing. Significantly, what follows the enumerated process is not an expression like "any other like process or any such process", in which case it could be argued that the non-enumerated process should of the same genus or class as the enumerated ones......" "......Admittedly, calendering is a finishing process. The machine employed may be a simple or complex one. The effect ought to be brought about may be simple or not. That, however, would not mean that calendering is not a process. In fact, from the sample produced by the appellants before us it was seen that the appellants had stamped cotton sarees as calendered. It was stated before us that the sarees were sold as calendered. Saree calendering will thus fall within the ambit of the expression "any other process" occurring in Section 2(f) and Item 19-1 CET particularly when sub-item (b) of Item 19-1 is read in juxtaposition with sub-item (a) which covers cotton fabrics not subjected to any process." 5. In this view of the matter, the Appellate Tribunal did not accept the contention that though "calendering" might be a "process", it is not any 'process' that satisfies the requirement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, "any other process" in Section 2(f)(v) which is a part of the scheme of the extended meaning of "manufacture" must also share the same characteristic of those other expressions. That apart, even if the amendment is beyond Entry 84 of List 1 and is supportable under or referrable to the residuary Entry 97 of List 1, on the principles of construction appropriate to the provision in Section 2(f)(v), is "any other process" in Section 2(f)(v), though otherwise of wide import, must share the characteristics of and be limited by the preceding expressions. 7. The expression ejus-dem-generis - 'of the same kind or nature' - signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation and are limited to matters of the same class or genus as preceding them. If a list or string or family of genus-describing terms are followed by wider or residuary or sweeping-up words, then the verbal context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such words. In 'Statutory Interpretation' Rupert Cross says : "......The draftsman must be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ".......This rule reflects an attempt to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words, in view of the other rules of interpretation, that all words in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute are presumed to be superfluous....." [p. 740] In U.P.S. C. Board v. Hari Shanker [A.I.R. 1979 SC 65] it was observed : "......The true scope of the rule of "ejusdem generis" is that words of a general nature following specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified. But the rule is one which has to be "applied with caution and not pushed too far"......" [p. 73] 8. The preceding words in the statutory provision which, under this particular rule of construction, control and limit the meaning of the subsequent words must represent a genus or a family which admits of a number of species or members. If there is only one species it cannot supply the idea of a genus. In the present case the expressions 'bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, water-proofing, rubberising, shrink-proofing, organdie processing' which precede the expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
