ASIAN PAINTS INDIA LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 23-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
ASIAN PAINTS INDIA LTD. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
MARCH 23, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI & S. RANGANA1HAN, JJ.] 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944-Section 35L and Tariff Item 
Nos. 14(I)(3)(iv) and I4 (I)(v) of the First Schedule-Classification for 
purpose of excise levy-Whether "Decoplast" is plastic emulsion 
paint-Resort to be made to the commerc.ial and popular meaning 
attached to the items by those dealing in them-Not to scientific and 
technical meaning. 
Statutory Construction-Excise Act-Sales tax Act-Tariff Items 
not defined-Interpretation of-To be construed in popular sense--
Commercial meaning attached to items by people who deal in them to be 
given. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The question as to whether "Decoplast" manufactured by the 
appellant is plastic emulsion paint or not had been determined in the 
affirmative by the Revenue, and revision application before the Gov-
-+ 
ernment oflndia was rejected. 
J 
) 
. 
E 
Thereafter the appellant moved the Bombay High Court, which 
direc\ed the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to 
hear the petition and to decide the same as an appeal before it. On 
behalf of the appellant, elaborate evidence had been adduced before the 
Tribunal. Reference was made to the specifications of plastic emulsion 
paint and the definition as given by ISi. The Tribunal addressed itself F 
to the question whether "Decoplast" could be considered as plastic 
emulsion paint having regard to (i) its composition; (ii) its characterist-
ics; (iii) its uses and (Iv) its reputation in trade parlance, and held that 
"Decoplast" is a plastic emulsion paint. 
Aggrieved by the order the appellant appealed under Section 351. 
G 
of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 to this Court, which. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 1.1 The commercial meaning has to be given to the expre-
ssions in Tariff items. Where definition of a word has not been given, it H 
339 
.. 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] 3 S.C.R. 
A must be construed in its popular sense. Popular sense means that sense 
which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute 
is dealing, would attribute to it. l343G I 
1.2 In the instant case the use of these two items and their com-
position, when analysed, revealed that in essence they performed the 
B same functions as plastic emulsion paint does, though there was some 
difference in them. The affidavits of traders and others were examined 
by the Tribunal. The Revenue did not adduce evidence in rebuttal. 
Therefore, in view of the composition, characteristics, uses and how 
it is known in the trade, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that 
"Decoplast" was plastic emulsion paint. This is a finding of fact 
arrived at on relevant and valid materials. There was no misdirec-
C tion in law. l344C-E] 
2. In interpreting items in statutes like the Excise Act or Sales 
Tax Act, resort should be had, not to the scientific and technical 
meaning of the terms or expressions used, hut to the popular mean-
D ing, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing 
in them. [343H; 344A-B] 
E 
F 
G 
C.I. T., Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad 
I 1972] I SCR 168 and Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of 
Sales Tax, U.P., [1981] 3 SCR 294, referred to. 
King v. Planter's Co., 11951] CLR (Ex.) 122 and 'Two Hundred Chests 
of Tea', [1824] 6 L.Ed. 128, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2456 
of 1987. 
From the Order dated 27.5.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold 
(Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E-2312/85-C 
K.K. Venugopal, R. Narain, S. Ganesh, R. Shah, R.K: Ram and 
D.N. Mishra for the Appellant. 
The Judgment .of the Court was delivered by 
SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. In this appeal under section 35L 
of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), 
the question involved is whether "Decoplast" manufactured "by the 
H 
Asian Paints Itldia Ltd., the appellant herein, is plastic emulsion. paint 
-
\ 
·I -. 
-
ASIAN PAINTS v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [MUKHARJI,J.] 
341 
and, therefore, classifiable under Tariff Item 14(I)(3)(iv) of the First 
Schedule of the Act as plastic emulsion paint or it should be classifi-
able under Tariff Item No. 14(1)(v) that is as "paints not otherwise 
specified". 
The Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal 
(hereinafter called 'the CEGAT'), by the impugned Order challenged 
in this appeal held that Decoplast is plast
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.