FRICK INDIA LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 21-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
FRICK INDIA LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
DECEMBER 21, 1989 
[S. RANGANATHAN, KULDIP SINGH AND 
V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Central Excise Tariff Act-Item No. 29-A-Air Conditioning and 
refrigeration equipment-Levy of excise duty under Clause ( 3) of Item 
29A. 
The appellant-company was engaged in the manufacturing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment under a proper licence. On 
january 21, 1970 the appellant cleared from the factory cooling coils, 
condensers and compressors and supplied the same to M/s. Ravi Cold 
Storage, Ahmedabad for putting up a cold storage and paid duty of 
Rs.13,547.20 P in respect thereof. Again on January 21, 1969, the 
appellant cleared from the factory various parts of refrigerating and 
air-conditioning appliances and machinery for an Ice factory plant to 
one M/s. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad 
and paid a duty of Rs.J9,336.87P. Both the aforesaid goods were 
manufactured at the appellant's factory. Thereafter the appellant filed 
two refund applications of the said excise duty before the Assistant 
Collector of Customs, contending that the refrigerating and air-condi-
tioning appliances which they had removed on the aforesaid dates were 
not excisable goods falling under Tariff Item No. 29A(3). The Assistant 
Collector of Customs rejected both the applications holding that the 
assessment was correctly made. The appellant-company preferred two 
appeals against these orders before the Collector of Customs and Cent-
ral Excise, Chandigarh, who dismissed both the appeals. Thereupon 
the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned single 
Judge who heard the petition dismissed the same holding that the goods 
supplied are parts of a refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances, 
that a complete cold storage plant was not supplied to M/s. Ravi Cold 
Storage, Ahmedabad or M/s. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corpora-
tion Ltd., Ahmedabad and that they would fall clearly within the 
purview of Tariff sub-item (3) of Tariff Item 29-A. An appeal preferred 
against this judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench in limine. 
Hence this appeal. 
Before this Court also the appellant inter alia contended that 
570 
FRICK INDIA v. U.0.1. 
571 
though in its sweep sub-item (3) may appear to cover all and every part 
of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery of all 
sorts, the words "and parts thereor' in the heading controlled the 
meaning and restrict it in the context only to parts of a completed unit 
which as such completed unit would have come under sub-items (1) and 
(2) of item 29-A. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: The legislative history and the notifications of the Govern-
ment show that sub-item (3) of item 29-A is a comprehensive provision 
encompassing within it all sorts of air-conditioning. and refrigerating 
appliances a.nd machinery and the Government of India was issuing 
notifications of exemptions on the understanding that such parts are 
covered by sub-item (3). The language used in sub-item (3) is also wide 
and comprehensive in its application and could not be given a restricted 
meaning. Sub-items (1), (2) and (3) are independent of each other and 
mutually exclusive. The scope of sub-item (3) is neither restricted nor 
controlled by the provisions of sub-items (1) and (2). (576C-D] 
Whether the manufacturer supplies the refrigerating or air-
conditioning appliances as a complete unit or not is not relevant for the 
levy of duty on the parts specified in sub-item (3) of item 29-A. [576F-G I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Complete plants which are covered by items (1) and (2) cannot be 
E 
considered as parts of machinery and such complete plants would not be 
classifiable under sub-item (3) of Item 29-A. (580B-C] 
Mother India Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Cent-
ral Excise and Ors., [1980] ELT 600 All, overruled. 
Blue Star Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., [1980] ELT 280 Born.; 
F 
Joy Ice Cream, Bombay v. Union of India, [1989] 39 ELT 521 Bom.; 
Calicut Refrigeration Co. v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, 
Cochin and Ors., [1982] ELT 106 Ker.; Chhibramau Cold Storage v. 
CEGAT, [1989] ELT 161-All; Goptal Cold Storage & Ice Factory v. 
Union of India and Ors., [1985] ELT 692-All and Anil Ice Factory & 
G 
Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [1984] ELT 333-Gujarat, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3395 
of 1982. 
From the Judgment and O

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