OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 378 · Decided: 27-04-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC. 
V. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 1993 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
Central F..xcises and Salt Act, 1944: 
First Schedule, Item 15-Soap-Toilet Soap-"Household" and "other 
sorts"--Interpretation of "Toilet Soap"-Whether household soap within the 
C meaning of Tariff item 15 (1). 
Interpretation of statutes; 
In interpreting a provision nothing 10 be added or deleted-Object of 
Leglsla1ttre 10 be gathered from the language used. 
D 
The appellant-Mills claimed that the"toilet soaps" produced by them 
E 
were bath soaps falling under tariffitem 15 (1) of the First Schedule (House· 
hold) to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, but the Assistant Collector 
cJassified the same as "other sorts" under tariff item 15(2) of the schedule 
attracting higher levy of excise duty. On appeal, the Collector held that they 
fell under tariff item No. 15 (1) "household". 
On second appeal, the Tribunal reversed the appellate order, against 
which the appellant-Mills preferred the instant appeals. 
The appellants contended that in 1954 toilet soap was treated as an 
F 
independent tariff sub-item and household and laundry soaps were treated as 
separate entity and separately subjected to varied rates of tariff; that on 
amendment in 1964 toilet soap was omitted as a separate entity and brought 
toilet soap as part of genus, namely, soap "household'', as toilet soap has 
always been a household soap. 
G 
The respondents contended that statute always kept distinction between 
soap "household and laundry" and "other sorts" and that toilet soap was kept 
in the packet of other sorts; that household and laundry soaps were being used 
for cleaning household articles and utensils and washing the clothes, while 
toilet soaps are for bathing purpose. The latter, composed of diverse varieties 
H based on personal liking and taste, are being used; and that they are 
commercially known as other sorts but not household. 
378 
OSW AL AGRO MILLS v. C.C.E. 
379 
Allowing the appeals, and remitting the matter to primary authority, 
this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The provisions of the Tariff do not determine the relevant 
entity of the goods. They deal whether and under what entry, the identified 
entity attracts duty. The goods are to be identified and then to find the 
appropriate heading, sub-heading under which the identified goods/prod-
ucts would be classified. To find the appropriate classification the description 
employed in the tariff nomenclature should be appreciated having regard to 
the terms of the headings read with the relevant provisions or statutory rules 
or interpretation put up thereon. For exigibility to excis;·duty the entity must 
be specified in positive terms under a particular tariff entry. In its absence 
ithas to be deducted from a proper construction of the tariff entry. There is 
neither intendment nor equity in a taxing statute. Nothing is implied. It 
should be interpreted and construed as per the words the legislature has 
chosen to employ in the Act or Rules. There is no room for assumptions or 
presumptions. The object of Parliament has to be gathered from the language 
used in the statute. (383-H, 384-A-B) 
1.2 '"foUetsoap" being of everyday household use for the purpose of the 
bath and having removed its sperate identity which it enjoyed preceding 
amendment and having been not specifically included in 'other sorts', it took 
its shelter in commercial parlance under 'household'. If any body goes to the 
market and asked for toilet soap, he must asked any for household bathing 
purpose and not for industrial or other sorts. Even the people dealing with 
it would supply it only for household purpose. It may be true that household 
consists of soap used for cleaning utensils, laundry used for cleaning soiled 
clothes and soap toilet iS used for bathing but house-hold is compendiously 
used, toilet soap is used only by the family for bathing purpose. Individual 
preference or choice or taste of a particular soap for bath is not relevant. The 
soap "toilet" would, therefore, fall within the meaning the word of "house-
hold" in sub-item (1) of item 15 of the Schedule. (384-8-C,) 
Ajoy kumar Bannerjee and-Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1984] 
3 SCC 127; altd Utka!Cqntractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. 
State of Orissa and Ors.: [1987] 3 SCC 279, distinguished 
Manmohan Das v. Visltnti Das, AIR 1967 SC 643; Ramavatar 
Budhaipasad etc. v. Asstt. Sales T

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