COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-I & ANR. versus PARLE EXPORTS (P) LTD.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 22-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-I & ANR. 
v. 
PARLE EXPORTS (P) LTD. 
NOVEMBER 22, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944/Central Excise Rules, 
1944: Sections 6 and 35L(b) First Schedule Tariff Item No. 68/Rules 8, 
9( 1), 53, 173 and 174 and Notification No. 55175 dated March 1, 
1975-Non-alcoholic beverages-Question of dutiability-Gold Spot 
base/ Limca base/Thumps Up base-Not intended to be given 
exemption. 
Statutory Interpretation: Courts to give weight to interpretation 
put upon statute at the time of its enactment. 
A 
B 
c 
Fiscal Statute/ Notification-Interpretation at time of enact-
D 
ment/issue-To be given due weight-Two views possible that in favour 
of assessee w be odopted. 
The respondent-company was engaged in the m~n_ufacture of non-
alcoholic beverage bases falling under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise 
Tariff. According to the Revenue, the company manufactured the non-
E 
alcoholic beverage bases without holding proper Central Excise 
Licence, and had cleared the said goods without payment of the duty 
due thereon. The stand of the company was that the goods were exempt 
from duty under Notification No. 55/75 C.E. dated 1st ;March, 1975 
which inter alia exempted "all kinds of food products and food prepara-
tions". The Customs and Excise Collector confirmed the demand of F 
central excise duty against the company. In appeal, the Customs Excise 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the 
company. 
The Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the appellants con-
tended that (i) non-alcoholic beverage base though having some food G 
value, was not food product or food preparation, at any rate, in the 
context of the Act and notification as such; (ii) the expression "food 
products and food preparations" was used in contrast to "beverages" 
so far as the present Act and notifications thereunder were concerned; 
(iii) in ordinary common and ~llmmercial parlance also the goods in 
guesti(ln were not known as food products and/or food preparations as 
H 
933 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
I 
A 
such, and therefore these were not to be treated as exempt under the 
notification; and (iv) how Government und.erstood a matter at the time 
of the notification, was a relevant factor and that was a factor which one 
should bear in mind. 
K.P. Verghese v: income Tax Officer Ernakulam, (1982] l SCR 
B 
629 and r.overnment of India's decision in Re: Asian Chemical Works, 
(1982] 10 ELT 609A, relied upon. 
c 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the Tribunal 
had acted on the varied materials, and therefore, such decision of the 
Tribunal should not be altered or deviated from. 
Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd., 
[1988] 37 ELT 474, relied upon. 
Allowing the appeals, it was, 
D 
HELD: (1) The word 'Food' has no fixed definition of univer-
sal application and its meaning varies from statute to statute. But 
food is one which nourishes and sustains human body for the pur-
poses of growth, work or repair and for the maintenance of the vital 
process. (9390 I 
E 
Brooke Bond (India) Limited v. Union of India, [1980] ELT 65; 
Brooke Bond (India) Limited v. Union of India, (1984] 15 ELT 32 and 
The State of Bombay v. Virkumar Gulabchand Shah, (1952] SCR 877, 
referred to. 
(2) The expression 'food products' is not dermed in the Act. 
F 
The exemption includes 'food produCts_ and food preparations' and 
provides an inclusive dermition of 'food products' and 'food pre-
parations'. [946E] 
(3) The words used in the provision, imposing taxes or granting 
e)lemptions, should be understood in the same way in which these are 
G 
understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force 
or by the people who ordinarily deal with them. [947F] 
(4) It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that courts in 
construing a statute or notification will give much weight to the interpre-
tation put upon it at the time of enactment or issue, and since by those 
H 
who have to construe, execute and apply the said enactments. [947E] 
COLLECTOR OF C.E. v. PARLE EXPORTS 
935 
(5) The notification should not only be confined to its grammati-
cal or ordinary parlance but it should also he construed in the light of 
the context. The expression should be construed in a manner in which 
similar expressions have been employed by those who framed the relev-
ant notification, [948E] 
Hind

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.