SIDDESHWARI COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 17-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SIDDESHWARI COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
JANUARY 17, 1989. 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND 
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: Section 2(f)(v ), First 
Schedule Item No. 19( 1) and Notification Nos. 230 and 231of1977-
C 
Cotton fabric if subjected to 'calendering'-Whether ceases to be 
'unprocessed' cotton fabric-Levy of excise duty-Expression 'any 
other process' -Interpretation of. 
Statutory Construction: 'Ejus dem generis' rule-Applicability 
0 
of-Preceding words to control and limit the subsequent words must 
represent a genus. 
E 
The appellant mannfactures cotton fabric on power looms. By 
virtue of two notifications issued nnder Role 8(1) of the Central Excise 
~ 
Rules 1944 unprocessed cotton fabric was exempt from excise duty as 
also additional duties. Since the appellant was using the process of 
'calendering', the Central Excise authorities held that the cotton 
fabric manufactured by it ceases to be "unprocessed". The collector 
of Central Excise, directed the appellant to pay levy on the manu-
facture of the calendered cotton fabric, and also levied a penalty of 
F 
Rs.1,00,000 under Rule 173. 
G 
On appeal, the Central Board of Excise and Customs affirmed 
the levy of duty, but .•et aside the imposition of penalty. The appellant 
preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) 
Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that calendering is a finishing 
process and it was not necessary for the process of calendering lo be a process 
which belonged to the same genus as those enumerated in Sec. 2(f)(v) 
to take the cotton fabric out of the exemption. It would be sufficient 
that if calendering is a "process" df cotton fabric even if it does not 
partake of the other processes specifically enumerated in the preced-
H 
ing expressions in Sec. 2(f)(v)2. In that view of the matter the Tribunal 
214 
SIDDESHWARI MILLS v. U.0.1. 
215 
-f .dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. 
A 
-" 
--, 
-
.·, J 
_',!, 
This appeal nnder Sec. 35L of the Act is against the Tribunal's 
Order. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that "plain-
calendering" process neither adds anything to the cotton fabdc nor 
the effect brought about by it is lasting; it was purely a temporary 
finish and that having regard to tbe nature of the process it is plainly 
manifest that it does not impart to the fabric either of the two ingre-
dients necessary to bring the process into the family of processes 
envisaged by the preceding expressions in Sec. 2(f)(v). 
On behalf of the Revenue it was submitted that since the 
Tribunal had not specifically examined this aspect and recorded its 
fipding thereon, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the 
Tribunal. 
Allowing the appeal, and remitting the matter to the Appellate 
Tribunal for a fresh disposal, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The expression ejus dem generis-'of the same kind 
or na~ure' -signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a 
statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with 
more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation 
and are limited to matters of the same class are genus as preceding 
them. If a list or string or family of genus-describing terms are 
followed by wider or residuary or sweeping-up words, then the verbal 
context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the 
scope of such words. But the preceding words or expressions of 
restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that they repre-
sent a class. If no class can be found, ejus-dem-generis rule is not 
attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent words may 
admit will be favoured. [220F; 221A-B] 
S.S. Magnhild (owners) v. Mc Intyre Bros. & Co., [1920] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
3 KB 321; Tribhuban Parkash Nayyar v. Union of India, [1970] 
H 
A 
B 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R .• 
2 SCR 732 and U.P.S.E. Board v. Hari Shankar, AIR 1979 SC 65 -t° 
relied on. 
Statutory Interpretation by Rupert Cross; Statutory Construction 
by Francis Bennian, relied on. 
2. The definition of "manufacture" obtaining in Sec. 2(1') of the ·f-
Central Excise Act was amended by Act 5 of 1986 giving it an extended 
meaning. [220A] 
Empire Industries v. Union of India, [1985] Suppl. 1 SCR 292 r 
C 
relied on. 
3. In the present case the expressions 'bleaching, mercerising, + 
dyeing, printing, water·proofing, rubberising, shrink.proofing, 
organdie processing' which preced

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