SIEMENS ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CO. OF INDIA LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 30-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

4 89 
SIEMENS ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CO. OF INDIA 
A 
• 
LIMITED 
• 
, 
'· 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
April 30, 1976 
[P. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
Customs Tariff-Item 72cJ)-Scope of. 
lnterprctation-"_Not otherwise specified" occurring in "n1achinery and not 
otherwise specified"-Meaning of. 
Administrative law-Reasoned order by Tribunals esselitial. 
Under item 72(3) of the First Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff, 
component parts of machinery as defined in item nos. 72, 72(1) and 72(2) 
and not otherwise specified are chargeable to 
customs 
duty. Item 
73(21) 
comprises of "electric motors, all sorts, and parts thereof". 
On the stren~th 
of a licence for importing "complete continuous filament Rayon Plant-with 
spares and accessories". certairi spinning frames excluding pot motors were im-
ported from Japan but not motors were imported from Germany by the appellants. 
The customs authorities accepted the claim of the appe1lants that the consign-
tnent of pot motors fell within item 72(3) and charged import duty accordingly. 
Son1etime later. the Assistant Collector of Customs, claiming that customs duty 
on pot motors was shoit levied as they fell within item 73(21) called upon 
the appellants to pay the difference, against which the appellants made a 
representation to the Assistant Collector. But the Assistant Collector held 
against the appellants without giving any reasons. The appellants thereafter 
filed a repre.se.ntation to the CoHecto.r but he held that since the spi,np.ing 
frames and the pot motors Were imported under''sep'arjlte contracts from se'parate 
countries the two consignments could not be treated as one article and hence 
rejected the representation. The appellants thereupon applied to the Govern· 
ment of India in revision but the revision application was also rejected. 
AllowinR the appeal to this Court. 
HEW: (1) (i) Item 72(3) is a specific item covering pot motors as 
B 
c 
D 
E 
against item 73(21) which is a general item. Pot motors were, therefore, 
F 
asses~:1h1e under the former and not under the latter. The original assessment 
of the A':~ic;tant Collector was correct and the subsequent demand of differential 
duty which \Vas confirmed by the Collector and the Government of Jndia 
was unlustified. 
(ii) Pot motors fell within the description given in iteD). 72(3). 
They were specially rlesigned f9r use in spinning machines for manufacturing 
ravon thrl!ad. and 
th~y. were indubitably essential for the working of the 
rayon spinning machines and were incapable of being used for any other 
purpose. 
They were, therefore~ clearly component parts of the r3yon spinning 
G 
machines. 
[495-D, 494Al 
(2) The argument of the respondents that if any component parts of 
1nachinerv were specifically dealt with in any other item, they would go out 
-of item 72(3) and since pot motors were electric motors \Vithin item 72(21) 
they were not cov.ered by item 72(3) Wai. clf,arly unsustainable. As a matte,r 
of both gram1nar ap.d language the words "not otherwise specified" cannot 'be 
read as qualifying "component parts". They qualify "machinery". Otherwise 
the coniunction "and" would have no meaning. The Sentence \voulJ. become 
H 
ungrammatical if the words "iiot otherwise specified" \\'ere read to govern 
"component par.ts". 
The description of the component parts which follows the 
words "not otherwise specified" starts with the words "namely" which shows 
that it is intended to be a complete description of the component parts covered 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY 
A 
by this item and that would also not actually fit in with component parts-
"not otherwise specified". 
Therefore, pot motors could not be held to fall 
outside that item because they were otherwise specified in ilem 73(21). [494HJ 
(3)(a) Where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial 
function it must record its reruiom in support of the order it makes. 
Every 
quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. 
[4950] 
M. M. Desai v. The Testee/s Ltd. & Anr. CA 245 of 1976, decided on 17th 
B 
Pee, 1975, referred to. 
c 
D 
(b) If courts of law were to be replaced by administrative authorities and 
tribunals and with the proliferation of administrative law, they may helve to be 
so replaced, it is essential that adrninistrative authorities and tribunals should 
accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their 
orders an

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