HANSRAJ GORDHANDAS versus H. H. DAVE, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, SURAT & TWO ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 253 · Decided: 27-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HANSRAJ GORDHANDAS 
v. 
H. H. DA VE, 
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL 
EXCISE & CUSTOMS, SURAT & TWO ORS. 
B 
September 27, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND 
j. 
A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
c 
D 
, . 
E 
• 
F 
G 
H 
Central Excises & Salt Act 1944--Rules made under-Rule 8 giving 
power to Central Government to exempt excisable goods from duty-
Exemptions under Notifications dated July 31, 1959 and April 30, 1960 
whether apply only to goods produced by a cooperative society for itself 
and not for others-Taxing 
statutes-Interpretation of-Relevance 
oj 
object of giving exemption from duty. 
The appellant who was a dealer in textiles in Bombay entered into an 
agreement with a registered cooperative society for weaving yarn supplied 
by him into cotton fabrics on powerlooms owned by its members. The 
Society had obtained L-4 licence as requfred by the Central Excises and 
Salt Act. 
1944. Under Rule 8 of the Rules made under the Act. the 
Central Government was empowered to exempt any excisable goods from 
the whole or any part of duty payable on such goods. In exercise of the 
power under Rule 8, the Central Government by a notification dated 
July 31, 1959 granted exemption to "cotton fabrics produced by any 
Cooperative Society fOrmed of owners of cotton powerlooms which is 
registered or which may be registered on or before March 31, 1961" sub-
ject to certain conditions set out in the notification. A subsequent notifica-
tion dated April 30, 1960 granted exemption to "cotton falirid,<; produced 
on powerlooms owned by any Cooperative Society or owned by or allotted 
to the members of the Society which is registered on. or before March 
31, 1961 ". On the strength of these notifications the appellant sought 
exemption from excise duty in respect of the cotton fabrics which were 
manufactured for it on powerlooms by the Cooperative Society. 
The 
excise authorities did not accept the claim for exemption and in a writ 
petition filed by the appellant. the High Court gave only partial relief. 
In appeal before this Court the question was whether the exemption 
granted under .the notifications in question could be claimed only when 
the cotton fabrics were manufactured by a Cooperative Society 'for itself. 
HELD : On a true construction of the language of the notifications 
dated July 31, 1959 and April 30, 1960, it is clear that all that is re-
qmred for claiming exemption is that the cotton fabrics must be pro-
duced on P<!werlooms owned by the Cooperative Society. 
There is no 
further reqmrement under the two notifications that the cotton fabrics 
must be produced by the cooperative society on power!ooms "for itself'. 
The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption claimed. [259 D-E) 
. 
It is well established that in a trucing statute there is no room for any 
mtendment ~ut r~gard must be had to the clear meaning of words. A 
statutory nollfication may not be extended so as to meet a casus omissus. 
It could be that the object behind the two notifications in question was 
to encourage the actual manufacturers of handloom cloth to switch over 
to powerlooms by constituting themselves into Cooperative Societies. But 
the operation of the notifications had to be judged not by the object which 
• 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
the rule, making authority had in mind but by the words which it had 
employed to effectuate the legislative intent. 
Applying this principle, the case of the appellant was covered by the 
language of the, two notifications and the appellant was entitled to exemp-
tion from excise duty for the cotton fabrics. [259 E; 260 A-DJ 
Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [1897] A.C. 22, 
38 and Crawford v. 
Spooner, 6 Moo P.C.C. 8, referred to. 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1049 
of 1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 31, 1964 
of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1054 
of 1963. 
Soli Sorabjee, D. M. Damodar, B. Datta and J. B. Dada-
chanji, for the appellant. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the respon-
dents. 
A 
B 
• 
c 
-
D 
P. R.', Mridul, Janendra Lal and B. R. Agarwala, for inter-
vener No. 1. 
J. B. Dadachanji, for interveners Nos. 2 and 3. 
Ramaswam, J. 
This appeal is brought by certificate from 
the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, dated July 31, 1964 
E 
in Special Civil Application No. 1054 of 1963. 
The appellant is the sole proprietor of Messrs Gordhandas 
and Co. carrying on b

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