COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR versus M/S. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 01-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR 
A 
v. 
MIS. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD. 
MARCH I, 2005 
[RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.) 
B 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Chapters 52, 54 and 59, Tariff Headings 
52.02, 54.08, 59.09 and Section Notes 5 and 6/Rules of Interpretation of 
Schedule to the Act; Rule I and 3 and Circular dated June 30, 1997 issued C 
by the Central Board of Excise and Customs : 
Classification-Grey cotton canvas cloths/belting and duck-Tariff 
Headings 52.02154.08 or 59.09-Held: Jn terms of Section· Note 6, Chapters 
52 to 55 would not apply to 'made up' goods-It follows that these Chapters 
would apply to non-made up goods and Chapter 59 apply to made up goods- D 
Goods in question are non made u~Tribunal rightly classified the product 
in question under Chapter 52 or 54. 
Words and Phrases : 
'made up goods' and 'non-made up goods '-Meaning of in the context E 
of Section 5 of the Central Excise Act. 
The question which arose for consideration in these appeals wa~ as 
to whether the grey cotton canvas cloth, hundred per cent cotton/grey 
cotton, belting and duck classifiable under Tariff Headings 52.02 or 54.08 
·of the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the assessee or under Tariff F 
Heading 59.09 of the Act as assessed by the Revenue. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. "Non made up" goods would cover running lengths of 
textiles, unprocessed in the manner specified in the Section Note to the G 
Central Excise Tariff Act. Section Note (SN-6) specifically provides that 
Chapters 52 to 55 would not apply to "made up" goods. It would logically 
follow that they would therefore apply to non-made up goods. Paragraph 
(a) ofCN-6 deals with "textile products in the piece, cut to length or simply 
441 
H 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A cut to rectangular (including square) shape (other.,than.those .having the 
character of the products of heading ,numbers 59.0rand 59.08)": From 
this, read with SN-5 and 6, it is inferred .that the context of Tariff Heading 
59.09 requires that it would apply to 'made up' goods. Running lengths 
of unprocessed textiles or non-made,up: goods therefore would not be 
B.: covered by this paragraph. The language of Tariff Heading 59.09 itself 
shows that it refers to articles and rroducts other than articles reffrred 
to in the Chapter.· There is a distinction between articles and products on 
the one hand and textile .fabrics on the other hand. 
(447;8.:'.C:D, G-H;'7448-Aj.· 
C 
Jyoti Overseas Ltd.. v: CCE, Indore, (2001) 130 "EL T .446;:app!'oved .•• 
2."lf neither the heading nor the notes suffice .to clarify the scope of· 
a.heading, then it.must be construed for the interpretation.oUhe Schedule: 
to the .Act according to the other following .provisions.,contaiiied '.in Jhe '. 
Rules. Rule-I gives:primacy to·the Section:and.Chapter_Notes·along~with_. 
D . terms of the .headings. They·should1beJirst applied.'_The appellants :have:. 
relied upon Rule 3:Rule3 must be understood only in the .context of sub-. 
rule (b) of Rule -rwhich"says inter alia .that the classification ·of.goods. 
consisting of more than one material or·substance shall be according to 
the principles contained in Rule 3. Therefore when·goods areprimafacie, 
_ classifiable under two or -more headings, classification shaU be effected 
E according to sub!rules (a), (b) ana (c) of Rule 3 ·and in that order;-Applying 
the Rules of interpreta~ion particularly Rule l of the Rules, it can be said · 
that the reasoning of a larger Bench of the Tribunal in-the case of Jyoti 
Overseas is unexceptionable and, therefore .the decision in the case of 
Simplex Mills Co. Ltd v: CCE Nagpur, (1993) .49 ECR 147/Suppt.•1 ·was· 
p correctly overruled by the larger Bench of the Tribunal by classify!ng the 
products of the respondent under Chapters 5rand.54 of the Act.• 
(448-B~c.:n;H;' 449.;A-Br; 
Jyoti Overseas Ltd v: CCE,:lndore, (2001) 130 ELT·446,-approved.' 
G, 
, CIVJL·APPELLATEJURJSDJCTl_ON< Civil,App~al:Nos!')2816"2818.-. 
of 2002.. 
· - · 
H 
i 
•1 
From. the ~udg\nent and .Order. dated 30.10.200 l o.f the.Ce'ntrat"Excise·, · 
Customs and, Gold .(Control) ~ppellate .Tribunal; Western-RegionaLBench,at 1 
Mumbai in F.O .. No. C-1/3415~17/WZB/2001 in A:iNo.-E/2263~2265:of2001 
..., 
C.C.E. v. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD. [RUMA PAL. J.] 
443 
Mum. 
A 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 1694, 5039-5040 and 5455-5458 of 2003. 
A. Subba Rao, Ravinder Aggarwal, T.A. Khan, P. Parmeswaran, B. B 
Krishna Pr

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