M/S. SAHNEY PARIS RHONE LTD. versus THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 04-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, S.B. MAJMUDAR, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M/S. SAHNEY PARIS RHONE LTD. 
v. 
THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD 
APRIL 4, 1995 
B [R.M. SAHAI, S.B. MAJMUDAR AND SCJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: 
Tariff Items 30 and 6&-Se/f Starter Motoi--Levy of Excise Duty-Held 
C duty is leviable under item 68 and not under item 30. 
Words and Phrases: "Solenoid', "applications" and "starter''-Meaning 
of 
The appellant-assessee was manufacturing self starter motor for u~e 
D in motor vehicles. It filed a classification list showing these motors falling 
under Tariff item No. 68. Rejecting the assessee's claim the Assistant 
Collector levied excise duty under tariff item No. 30. Assessee's appeal was 
dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise. On further appeal the 
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upheld the view 
of the lower authorities that the self starter manufactured by the appellant 
E was liable to be taxed under Tariff Item 30 being an electric motor. 
Against the decision of the Tribunal assessee preferred an appeal to 
this Court contending that the self starter motor was not an electric motor. 
Therefore, it was covered by the residuary tariff item 68. 
F 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this 
Court 
HELD : 1. The self starter motors manufactured by the appellant 
were liable to bear the duty of excise under Item 68 as applicable at the 
G relevant time. [152-F) 
2. A mere look at Item 30 shows that it is comprehensive in nature 
and covers all sorts and parts of electric motors. The entry, however 
comprehensive, seeks to cover only electric motors of all types and parts 
consisting of such electric motors. But this entry will not cover any 
H manufactured item which uses not only electric motor but something else 
150 
.I 
SAHNEY PARIS PHONE v. C. OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
151 
to result into the manufactured item. The self starter which the appellants . A 
'"' 
are manufacturing is an item which not only contains electric motor but 
something more like solenoid and its all other connecting parts without 
which self starter will not work. [155-B] 
3. In view of the meanings of the terms "solenoid", "applications" and 
"starter" it has to be held that the self starter motor which the appellants B 
have manufactured is an electric motor fitted with additional items like 
solenoid and other connected apparatus which taken together would con· 
stitute self starter motor. Though the motor is used, it is not motor alone 
but something else equally important which in conjunction with each other 
would constitute self starter motor. It is no doubt true that even the C · 
dictionary meaning of starter makes it clear that there is a direct current 
electric motor in starter. But it is not the electric motor alone, which is 
manufactured by the appellants, or which can. constitute a starter. It is 
easy to visualise that if only electric motor was manufactured, that by itself 
would not work as a starter. It could not have propelled mechanical energy 
to the rotating shaft to crank the engine of the motor car. It is the D 
inter-connection between the electric motor on the one hand and solenoid 
and other connected apparatus on the other, that together result in the 
manufacturing of self starter motor. Consequently, it must be held that on 
the express language of !ten.. 30 the self starter motor manufactured by 
the appellant is not covered by it. If that is so, it would naturally fall within E . 
the residuary item 68 as contended by the appellants. Excise duty shall be 
worked out accordingly. [157-G, H, 158-A to C, G] 
The Illustrated Science and Invention Encyclopaedia" International 
Edition, WestpoTt, Connecticut; referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3939 of 
1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.87 of the Central Excise 
and Salt Act, 1944, of the Central Excise and Customs and Gold (Control) 
F 
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No.E/T/1238/82-B-I. 
G 
V. Sridharan, Bharat Deepak and Suresh Vohra for the Appellants. 
N.K. Bajpai, P. Narsimhan and V.K. Varma for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
MAJMUDAR, J. This appeal is moved by the appellant·assessees 
under Section 35-L of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter 
referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 24th September, 1987, 
passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribu

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