MIS RELIANCE CELLULOSE PRODUCTS LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 08-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS RELIANCE CELLULOSE PRODUCTS LTD. 
• A 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD 
JULY 8, 1997 
[SUHAS C. SEN AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
B 
Excise: 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 198~1tem 15-A (1) (as amended on 
1.3.1982)-Cellulose ethers and ethers-Held, not intended to be excluded by C 
the amendment. 
Central Excise Rule, 194~Rule 56-Retesting of samples-Not being 
satisfied with the report of Chemical Examiner, opportunity to have the 
sample retested by Chief Chemist availed of by the Assessee-appellant but still 
not satisfied with his report-Sending of fresh sample for a fresh test requested D 
by the appellant-Request rejected by the Asstt. Collector--Held, in absence 
of any procedural infimzity order of Asstt. Collector valid. 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985-ftem 15-A(1}-Sodium Carboxymethyl 
Cellulose (SCMC)-On chemical analysis found to be cellulose 
ether-Product not shown to be known in the market by any other name and E 
falling under any other entry other than Item 15-A(1)-Held, Tribunal was 
right in holding that SCMC manufactured by the appellant answered the 
description cellulose ether and as such assessable under Item 15-A(1). 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Taxing statutes-Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Item-Technical 
meaning-Held, although nonnally common parlance meaning or the sense 
in which commodity is known in the trade has to be attributed but if 
legislature itself has adopted a technical tenn, it has to be understood in the 
technical sense. 
The appellant is manufacturer of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 
(SCMC). The appellant filed a classification list on 18.6.1982 and their 
product SCMC was described as carboxymethyl cellulose and classified 
under Tariff Item No. 68. The classification list was approved provisionally 
F 
G 
and the assessments were made provisionally under Rule 9-8 of the H 
485 
·\ 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A Central Excise Rules from 1.3.1982. A sample of the product was tested by 
Departmental Chemical Examiner, who reported the test result as under: 
"The sample is in the form of pale brown powder. It is a sodium salt 
of carboxymethyl cellulose ... a cellulose ether." 
B 
Appellant having not satisfied with the test report requested the 
sample to be retested by the Chief Chemist. The request of the appellant 
was acceded to and the sample was again tested by the Chief Chemist and 
he also confirmed the test report of the Departmental Chemical Examiner. 
C 
Again feeling aggrieved by the test report of the Chief Chemist, the 
appellant requested for drawal of a fresh sample and sending it for fresh 
test which was refused by the Assistant Collector. The appellant filed an 
appeal against the order of the Assistant collector before the Collector 
(Appeals), who by his order-in-appeal directed the Assistant Collector to 
hear the case de nova. 
D 
Thereafter, the Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice calling 
upon the appellant to show cause as to why sodium carboxymethyl cel-
lulose manufactured by them should not be classified under the erstwhile 
Tariff Item 15-A(l) read with Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 
E 1985 and why the difference of duty payable under Tariff Item 15-A(l) and 
that paid under Item 68 should not be paid under Section 11-A of the 
Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 from 28.2.1982 till the date of show cause 
notice. 
In reply to the show cause notice, the appellant stated that the show 
F 
cause notice be not issued without first deciding the issue regarding drawal 
of fresh sample and sending it to Chief Chemist on the ground that the 
earlier sample was old. However, the Assistant Collector in its order 
observed that the appellant did not show any evidence on record or 
otherwise that the composition of sample gets affected due to age and . ., 
G rejected the plea of the appellant. 
The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant 
Collector before the Collector (Appeals) who upheld the order of the 
Assistant Collector and held that the tests have been made repeatedly by , 
proper authority under Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules. On further 
H appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector. 
RELIANCE CELLULOSE PRODUCTS LTD. v. C.C.E.HYDERABAD 487 
These orders were now challenged before the Supreme Court. This A 
Court was referred to a number of test reports obtained by the appellant 
from various persons and on the basis of these 

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