LexM/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.
v.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
APRIL 4, 2002
[S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., N. SANTOSH HEDGE AND
ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]
A
B
Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Tariff item : Sub-heading 6815.10 and
8419.50-Chapter 84 .. Note (I) (a)-Karbate Tubes which are, Part of Heat
exchangers-Classification of under sub-heading 6815.10-Claim for C
classification under sub-heading 8419.50-Held by tribunal that it cannot be
classified in sub-headings 8419.50 in view of exclusion clause in Note I (a) of
Chapter 84-Plea that the Note excludes only the entries in sub-heading 6804,
hence by appli~tion of principle ofejusdem generis only the articles similar
to the items "in sub-heading 6804 would be excluded-On appeal-Held, D
since the language of the Note is clear and unambiguous and the same does
not speak of a class, category of genus followed by general words, rule of
ejusdem generis would not be applicable.
Doctrines:
Principle of ejusdem generis-Applicability of-Discussed
Interpretation of Statutes:
Statutes-Provisions-Words-Interpretation of-To be in the context
E
in which words used and to be gathered from mens sententia legis of the F
legislature-Clear language of statute-Legislative intent to be gathered
therefrom-Where words clear and intention of legislature conveyed Court
not to amend or alter the provisiOn.
While deciding the question-whether Karbate Tubes which are parts
of Heat exchangers were classifiable under tariff items sub-heading 6815.10 G
or under sub-heading 8419.50 in first schedule of the Customs Tariff Act,
1975--Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal held that the
same would fall under sub-heading 6815.10; and that though it was part of
machinery which might otherwise attract sub-heading 8419.50, but it would
no,t be applicable in view of exclusion in Note J{a) of Chapter 84.
H
945
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2002) 2 S.C.R.
A
In appeal to this Court appellant-assessee contended that the tubes in
·question being parts of Heat exchangers were classifiable under Chapter 84
and the same could not be excluded by Note l(a) as exclusion in Note l(a) is
.
'
restricted only to sub-heading 68.04 which specifically refers mill-stones,
grindstones, grinding wheels and the like, and not to all articles in Chapter
B 68; that by application of principle of ejusdem generis only such article which
are similar to millstones and grind stones would be excluded by the Note;
apd that had the legislature intended to make note l(a) applicable to all the
articles in Chapter 68 it would have used the expression "articles of Chapter
68''. instead of using the expression "other articles of Chapter 68" in the Note.
C
Revenue contended that the language of the provision in question is
D
clear, therefore, if interpretation sought to be put by assessee were to be
accepted, it would mean a complete transformation of the provision by
addition/deletion of certain words, which is not permissible.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to
be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not
concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other ~ords.
No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in
isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and
E in the context in which it is used. Every statute is an edict of the legislature.
The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute
is to gather the mens or sententia /egis of the legislature. Where the words are
clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention
of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the Court to take
F upon itself the task of amending or alternating the statutory provisions.
Wherever the language is clear, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered
from the language used. In case of an ordinary word there should be no
attempt to substitute or paraphrase of general application. Attention should
be confined to what is necessary for deciding the particular case.
G
[951-D-E; G)
Collector of Custom~, Bombay v. Grasim Industries Ltd [2000] S SCC 177,
distinguished.
Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg (Wvg.) Co. Ltd v. Custodian of Vested Forests,
PalghatandAnr., Affi(1990) SC 1747; UnionoflndiaandAnr. v.DeokiNandan
H Aggarwal, AIR (1992) SC 96; Institute of Chartered AccouExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.