MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR THE CITY OF THANE AND ORS. versus ASMACO PLASTIC INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 17-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR THE CITY OF 
THANE AND ORS. 
v. 
ASMACO PLASTIC INDUSTRIES AND ORS. 
JULY 17, 1998 
[S.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANA!K 
ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Municipalities : 
Maharashtra Municipality (Octroi Duty) Rules, 1968 : 
Schedule I-Entry 53(c) or 40(b)-PVC Resin in powder form-
Classification of-Held: Classifiable under Entry 53(c) "plastic and plastic 
goods, plastic powder etc." and not under Entry 40(b) "Chemicals of all 
D sorts"-Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Bombay 
Municipal Corporation (Levy of) Octroi Rules, 1965; 
Schedule H-Entry 32(c)-PVC Resin in Powder form and Synthetic 
Hydrocarbon Resin-Classification of-Held: Classifiable under Entry 32(c) 
E "plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder"-Bombay Municipal Corporation 
Act, 1888. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Taxing Statutes-Commodities brought to taxation-Held : Meaning 
F attributed to commodities will be with reference to their commercial parlance 
and not with reference to technical literature. 
Internal aids-Heading-Classification of goods-In different headings 
in 1965 and 1968 Octroi Rules-Held : Goods are classified in the Rules not 
on any scientific basis unlike in Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act-Hence, 
G Heading itself does not control the meaning attached to goods-Customs 
Tariff Act, 1975, Chapter 39. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Plastic powder"-Meaning of-Jn the context of Entry 53(c) of Schedule 
H 1 to Maharashtra Municipality (Octroi Duty) Rules, 1968. 
774 
,,- . 
[ 
M.C. CITY OF THANE v. ASMACO PLASTIC INDUSTRIES 
775 
"Plastic powder"-Meaning of-In the context of Energy 32(c) Schedule A 
., 
H to Bombay Municipal Corporation (Levy of) Octroi Rules, 1965. 
The respondent manufactured PVC Resins in powder form and Synthetic 
Hydrocarbon Resin, which were liable for octroi duty. The respondent filed 
a writ petition before the High Court contending that the aforesaid products 
B 
fell under Entry 40(b) "Chemicals of all sorts" of Schedule I to the 
Maharashtra (Octroi Duty) Rules, 1968 whereas the appellant contended 
that the said products fell under Entry 53(c) of the 1968 Rules and Entry 
32(c) of Schedule H to the Bombay Municipal Corporation (Levy ot) Octroi 
Rules, 1965 relating to "plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder etc." 
respectively. The High Court allowed the petition. Hence this appeal. 
c 
The following questions arose before this Court :-
(a) 
Whether for the purpose of levy of Octroi duty PVC Resins in 
powder form would fall under 'plastic and plastic goods, plastic 
powder' in Entry 53(c) of Schedule I to Maharashtra Municipality D 
(Octroi Duty) Rules, 1968 framed under the Bombay Provincial 
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 or under Entry 32(c) of 
Schedule H to the Municipal Corporation (Levy ot) Octroi Rules, 
1965 framed under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 
1888. 
(b) 
Whether for the purpose of levy of Octroi duty Synthetic E 
Hydrocarbon resin is to be treated as 'plastic and plastic goods, 
plastic powder' in Entry 32(c) of Schedule H to the Municipal 
Corporation (Levy ot) Octroi Rules, 1965 framed under the 
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
F 
. ,.( 
HELD: 1.1. In the present case, when the expression "plastic, plastic 
goods and plastic powder" is used along with bakelite and bakelite goods and 
the manner in which the Legislature used these expressions will clearly 
indicate that the intention is to cover all kinds of plastic material whether G 
in primary form or in any otht:r secondary form. [779-F) 
... 
1.2. Therefore, the appropriate manner in which the commodity in the 
present case, nam~Iy, plastic powder, has been treated as a separate entry, 
it is brought to tax under Entry 32(c) or 53(c) to Schedule H under the 
Bombay Municipal Corporation (Levy ot) Octroi Rules, 1968. Similar would H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[I 998] 3 S.C.R. 
A be the position with reference to Hydrocarbon resins. Even Hydrocarbon 
resin is treated on the same footing as a synthetic plastic and, therefore, the 
goods in question cannot be treated as plastic goods or plastic powder _but 
as separate goods and, therefore, one cannot accept the contention of the 
respondent that the said goods are neither plastic in nature nor powder in 
B form and it is not possible to accept the contention that Hydrocarbon resin 
is distinct from plastic. (780-H; 781-A) 
2.1. It wou~d not be appropriate to rely upon technical literature to 

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