KEDIA AGGLOMERATED MARBLES LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 14-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KEDIA AGGLOMERATED MARBLES LTD. 
v. 
-t 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
JANUARY 14, 2003 
B 
(M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985-Tariff Heading 68.07-Claimant 
manufacturing floor tiles-Marketing in trade name of 'Marbella Agglomerated 
c Marble' and 'Marbellam Tiles '-Claim for benefit of exemption notification-
Authorities allowing the claim, however Tribunal rejecting it since product 
marketed in the trade name and not in the name .'of 'Mosaic Tile' commercially 
known as such-Held: Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim since words 'Mosaic 
...)... 
Tiles' in the exemption notification are to be understood in their popular 
meaning-Also the claimant produced before the authorities sufficient material 
l 
D to show that both technically and commercially its tiles are known as 'Mosaic 
Tiles' which was not rebutted by the departments-Interpretation of Statutes. 
Appellant manufactured floor tiles which are marketed under the 
trade name 'Marbella Agglomerated Marble' and 'Marbellam Tiles'. The 
E 
product is classified under TaritTheading 68.07. Central government issued 
an exemption notification whereby tiles commercially known as 'Mosaic 
Tiles' included in Tariff heading 68.07 were exempted from payment of 
duty. Appellant claimed exemption from payment of duty on the ground 
that the tiles manufactured by them are commercially known as 'Mosaic 
Tiles'. Authorities accepted the claim. However, Tribunal rejected the 
F claim for exemption. Hence the present appeal. 
~ 
Respondent contended that the product though technically could be 
..... 
described as 'Mosaic Tile' is not proved to be commercially known as such. 
Appellant contended that they had produced before the authorities 
G technical information O'l the manufacturing process of the product and 
affidavits of persons in trade to demonstrate that the product is 
commercially known as 'Marble Mosaic Tile' which was not rebutted by 
respondent; and that the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the 
~ ., 
evidence and material produced by appellant and deciding the case only 
on the basis of the trade name given by appellant to its products. 
H 
320 
KEDIA AGGLOMERATED MARBLES LTD. v. C.C.E. 
321 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
r 
HELD: I. I. Tribunal upset the well reasoned orders of lower 
authorities and wrongly denied the benefit of exemption notification to 
appellant on the sole ground that it is marketing its product in the trade 
name of'Marbella Agglomerated Marbles' and 'Marbellam Tiles' and not 
A 
in the name of 'Mosaic Tile'. Appellant had produced before the B 
authorities evidence and material to show that both technically and 
commercially its tiles are known as 'Mosaic Tiles' or 'Marble Mosaic Tiles' 
which was not rebutted by the department. Appellant had explained that 
trade name was given to the product so marketed to distinguish it from 
ordinary 'Mosaic Tiles' in which there is no use of marble chips and C 
marble stones. There was no justifiable reason for the Tribunal to reject 
this explanation since appellant could give typical trade name to the 
product to distinguish it in the market from ordinary 'Mosaic Tiles' made 
from stones other than stones or chips of marbles. 
[326-G; 327-G, H; 328-A, B] 
1.2. The primary object of classifying products iii fiscal statute like D 
Central Excise Act being for raising revenue, the settled rule of 
interpretation is that the various headings or sub-headings in the Tariff 
should be understood not in strict scientific and technical sense but in their 
popular sense i.e. the meaning assigned to them by those trading in and 
using the product. The words 'Mosaic Tiles' in the exemption notification E 
are to be understood, thus, in their popular meaning. After the words 
'Mosaic Tiles', the addition of words 'tiles known commercially as 'Mosaic 
tiles', in the text of the exemption notification. appears to be an over 
emphasis, with intention to assign meaning to the product in the sense in 
which it is understood by those dealing in and using the product. 
[328-B-D[ F 
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 
Nagpur, [1996) 9 SCC 402, relied on. 
Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd v. Collector o/Central Excise, (1991] 52 ELT 
608, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6302of1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2.95 of the Central. Excise 
Cusl\)ms and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. 

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