MAHINDRA ENGINEERING AND CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 254 · Decided: 21-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MAHINDRA ENGINEERING AND 
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 21, 1992 
[S. R. PANDIAN AND R. M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Central Excise-Tari.ff-Item No. 22F(4)--Const111ction-Legislative 
intention- "Following namely", "that is to say ", "other manufacture", 
"mamifacture therejYom "--Meaning. 
Central Excise-Tariff-Item No.22F(4), Item No.68--G/ass fabric 
manufactured out mineral fibre--Whether exigible to duty---,4rc Chamber 
housing manufactured from glass fabric-Duty-Exigibility. 
The appellant was manufacturing the tubular shaped arc chamber 
D 
housings from glass fabrics. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Assistant Collector levied duty under tariff Item No.22F(4) 
of the Central Excise and Tariff Act. It was held that the goods 
were covered under tariff item 22F(4) as the percentage of the min-
eral fibre yarn was predominant in the weight. 
The Collector in appeal held that the words "manufactured , 
therefrom" in tariff Item No.22F(4) would include not only first 
manufacture of mineral fibre and yarn but also subiequent manu-
t\cture wherein mineral fibre or yarn was used. 
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Collector, oh construc-
tion of the expression "manufacture therefrom", and held that the 
goods should he manufactured from mineral fibre and yarn, that 
glass fabric was an intermediate stage between glass arc housing 
and glass fibre or yarn, yet the goods were exigible to duty under 
item 22F(4), as the arc housing chamber did not cease to be manu-
factured of glass fibre/yarn, merely because the fibre/yam was first 
woven into glass fabric, and that if glass fibres/yarn were to be 
woven into fabrics before they could be used in the manufacture of 
the housing, the housing would not cease to be a manufacture of 
glass fibres/yarn. 
A five-judge Bench of the CEGAT did not agree with the inter-
254 
-r
.MAHINDRA ENGINEERING v. U.O.l. ·.· 
255 
pretation put by the Tribunal and held that the entry applied to 
A 
only those products the manufacture or attendant function of which 
was to do something with mineral fibre and yarn and it did not 
apply to a productin which o!'IY mineral fibre or yarn was used. 
Again~! the order of CEGAT, the appellant manufacturer pre-
ferred the appeal before this Court by special leave. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.01. The entry is in two parts, one, descriptive and 
the other explanatory. Both are to be read together to bring out the 
scope and extent of .its applicability fully. The first declares the C 
items which are exigible to duty but restricts it to only tho_se in 
relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily car-
ried on with the aid of power. The words 'following namely' used in 
the second part explains the items that .ycre intended to be covered 
in this entry. Use of expressions 'namely' or 'that is to say' followed 
by description of goods is usually exhaustive unless there arc strong 
D 
indications to the contrary. [257 G 258 A) 
1.02. 
Language of serial no.4 is plain and simple. It intends 
to clarify the expression 'manufacture therefrom' by expanding it 
to include in its ambit even those manufactures .in which fibre or 
yarn predominated in weight. But it did not go beyond it and pur-
E 
ported to include manufactures out of manufacture.of a commodity 
in which mineral fibre or yarn predominated. Any other construc-
tion would result in altering the principal clause. That would be 
contrary to the scheme of the entry and principle of construction.· 
Its only effect was to include even those manufactures in which 
mineral fibre or yarn or both predominate. It could not be extended 
F 
to those goods which were manufactured out of certain commodity 
in which mineral fibre or yarn had been predominately used. 
[258 A-B, DJ 
1.03. 
The word 'other manufacture' has to be read in the 
same sense as 'manufacture therefrom' used in the main part. The 
G 
only difference is that the scope has been widened to include not 
·only those goods which were manufactured from mineral or yarn 
but even to those in which they predominate. [258 D-E] 
2.01!. 
Glass fabric manufactured out of mineral fibre is exigi-
blc to duly under ltem no. 4 but arc chamber housing manufactured 
H 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] I S.C.R. 
A 
from glass fabric cannot be placed at par with glass fabric and 
cannot be considered as 'other manufacture' of glass fibre or yarn. 
(258 F] 
2.02. 
The arc chamber housing manufactured out of g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.