LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI versus PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI A v. PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD. AUGUST 30, 2001 [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.) B Customs Act, 1962 : Customs Duty-Exemption from-Plans, drawings and designs- C Classification of-Tariff Item 49 or 49.06 and 49.11-Held: Plans, drawings and designs are not printed manuals in loose leaf form with binder-Such goods, therefore, fall under Tariff Item 49.06 and 49.11-Hence, not exempted from customs duty-Customs Notification No. 25195/Cus dated 16.3.1995. Interpretation of Statutes: Rules of construction-Basic cannons of-Held : Ordinary common parlance meaning has to be attributed to words used in a statute. Words and Phrases : "Printed books", "manuals''. "plan", "drawings" and "designs"-Meaning of-In the context of Customs Notification No. 25195/Cus dated 16.3.1995. D E The respondent-assessee imported certain printed drawings, designs and plans under an agreement for transfer of technology for the purpose of setting F up a plant to manufacture Polyester, Polyster Filament Yarn and Polyester Staple Fibre. The respondent contended before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal that the said goods were covered under SI. No. IO of the Customs Notification No. 25/95/Cus dated 16.3.1995 having 'Nil" rate of duty. But the Revenue contended that the goods fell under SI. No. 15 of the notification attracting IO percent ad valorem. The CEGA T held that G the said goods fell under Tariff Item 49.01 and thus came within the ambit of SI. No. I 0 of the Exemption Notification. Hence this appeal. The following qu!!stion arose before this Court : 333 H -A B 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. Whether the benefit of exemption under Customs Notification No. 25/ 95/Cus dated 16.3.1995, as amended, was available to the goods i.e. printed drawings, designs and plans under the Foreign Transfer of Technology Agreement imported by the respondent ? Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1 Admittedly, in terms of the agreement between the parties, the documents imported cannot but be attributed to be technical know-how in the shape of drawing, design, plan and other literature. It is a literature or specification for a particular plant to manufacture Polyester, Polyester C Filament Yarn and Polyester Staple Fibre. Even without adverting to the general trade parlance of the word 'book' and its known features, a plain look at the book itself denotes it to be an installation and planning Manual. It is a technology transfer agreement, which stands documented in a folder. [341-D, E) D Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd v. CIT, (1986) l SCC 11, held inapplicable. CITv. £/econ Engineering Co. Ltd, (1974) 96 ITR 672, referred to. 1.2. Merely by reason of the factum of certain writings on various E sheets of papers one cannot ascribe the documentation to be a 'book'. The word 'book' has not been defined in the Customs Act, 1962 but the word 'book' in common acceptation is a literary composition from which one may extend or advance his or her knowledge and learning. [341-G] F Law Lexicon and Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 70, referred to. 2.1. One of the basic cannons of interpretation of statute is that the legislature intends to ascribe the ordinary common parlance and meaning to the words used therein. In the matter under consideration, the legislature has used the word 'printed books' and clarified it by inclusion of covers-the intent thus seems to be rather obvious to mean books in ordinary sense and not any G other meaning. The articles imported cannot be termed to be 'printed manuals' in 'loose leaf form with binder'. [341-H, 342-A-B] 2.2. Ordinary common parlance ought to be attributed for the expressions used by the legislature and on attribution thereof one cannot possibly come to a conclusion that the exemption notification No. 25/95/Cus H dated 16-3-1995 ever aimed at extending the meaning to the extent as has _.,. C.l.T. v. PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD. [BANERJEE, J.] 335 been effected by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. A [342-D) Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd v. CIT, [1986) 1 SCC 11; CCE v. Indian Petro Chemicals, (1997) 92 ELT 13 (SC) and HCL Ltd v. CCE, (2001) 130 ELT 405 (SC), held inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 7303- 7306 of 2000. B From the Judgment and Order dated 3 I. I 0.97 and 8.5.2000 of the Customes Ex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.