COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI versus MIS. ALLIED AIR-CONDITIONING CORPORATION (REGD.)

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 13-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI 
A 
v. 
MIS. ALLIED AIR-CONDITIONING CORPORATION (REGO.) 
/ 
.,, 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDS.H. KAPADIA,JJ.] 
B 
Central Excise Tariff Act, I985-Tariff and Chapter heading No.84.15-
Item No. 29-A-Package type Air Conditioner-Excise duty-levy of-
Assessee's case that package type air conditioner cleared in knocked down c 
condition, assembled directly at site and valuation of items involved to be 
excluded-As such not assessable as air conditioners and extended period 
of limitation not applicable-Tribunal relying on PSI Data's case allowed 
assessee 's case but invoked limitation-Correctness of-Held: Tribunal did 
not indicate the relevancy of the ratio of PSI Data's case which was on 
different facts-It did not analy~e each item individually and also did not D 
examine the stand of the parties on /imitation-Hence, matter remilled back-
Central Excise Act, 1944-Section ll(A) proviso-Precedent. 
Precedents: Reliance on decision-Scope of-Held: Judgment should 
be read as whole-It should be understood in the light of the facts of the 
E 
case-Nothing more should be read into it than what it actually says-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 141. 
Respondent-assessee was the manufacturer of package type Air 
Conditioners. Appellant-department alleged that the respondent was selling 
the air conditioners by assembling the same at site through orders procured F 
from various authorities by way of tenders/contracts regarding nine 
components. Respondent filed price list for two items and cleared the air 
conditioners without payment of duty. Appellant issued notices to the 
respondent since there was evasion of duty by mis-declaration; and invoked 
extended period under proviso to section l l(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 
Respondent contended that packaged type air conditioners were being cleared G 
in a knocked down condition an!! were assembled directly at site and were not 
' 
-; 
assessable as air conditioners. Appellant confirmed the demand and imposed 
penalty. Respondent c~allenged the order. Tribunal did not analyse the 
individual items and allowed the appeal relying on PSI Data System Ltd 's case. 
41 
H 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A However, it held that the extended period of limitation was applicable. Hence 
the present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A judgment should be understood in the light of facts of the 
B case and no more should be read into it than what it actually says. It is neither 
desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment 
divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to 
be complete law decided by this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole 
and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of 
C the questions which were before this Court. (46-E-G[ 
Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, [2004[ 2 SCC 362, 
relied on. 
1.2. A bare reading of the Tribunal's order makes the position clear 
D that it did not analyse each item individually and also did not indicate as to 
how the ratio in PSI Data System ltd 's case had any relevance. The same was 
rendered in entirely different factual scenario. [46-E-FI 
PSI Data System ltd. v. CCE, (1997) 89 ELT 3 SC, distinguished. 
2. Tribunal did not analyse the respective stand of the appellant and the 
E respondent on the issue of limitation elaborately. It did not examine in detail 
the relevance of various documents pressed into service by the parties in 
support of their respective stand. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to 
the Tribunal. (46-G-HJ 
F 
Mehra Brothers v. Joint Commercial Officer Madras, [1991 [ I SCC 514; 
Star Paper Mills ltd. v. Collector of Central fa:cise, (1989[ 4 SCC 724 and 
Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries ltd. & Lakshmi Cement v. Collector of 
Customs, Calcutta, (2000( 10 SCC 224, referred to. 
Black's law Dictionary 5th Edn. p. 13 and Webster Comprehensive 
G Dictionary International Edition, referred to. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1110-11 OJ of 
2001. 
From the Judgment dated 29.3.2000 in Order No. 193-194/2000-A of the 
COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE. OELHI .-. ALLIED AIR-CONDITIONING CORPN (REGO.) (PASAY.\T, J.) 43 
Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal A 
Nos. E/1335 and 1847/97-A. 
A.K. Ganguly, Ajay Shanna. Vikram Gulati, B.K. Prasad and Navin Prakash 
<\ 
for

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