SUBHASH PHOTOGRAPHICS ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 654 · Decided: 11-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUBHASH PHOTOGRAPHICS ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 11, 1993 
[B.P.JEEVAN REDDY ANON. VENKATACHALA,JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962/Cust01ns Tariff Act, 1975/Project Imports Regulations, 
1986: 
Ss. 156. 157, 159/First Schedule, Second Schedule, Chapter 90, Chapter 98. 
Heading 98.01, Chapter Notes (1) and (2) Regulation/(3)-"Industrial 
Plant"-Meaning of-Pfrotographic machinery does not fall within the p11111iew 
of "industrial plant". 
Administrative Law : 
Delegated Legislation-Chapter 98 of Customs Tariff Act, 
1975-Concessional rate of duty on certain articles including "industrial 
plant"-Chapter Note (2) conferring power on Central Board of Customs and 
Excise to define expressions used in Chapter 98-Project imports Regulations 
made by Board defining "industrial plant"- Etclusion of industrial systems 
meant for establishments designed to offer services of any description such as 
photographic studios, photo-graphic film processing laboratory etc. from the 
purview of "industrial p/ant"-Held-Regulation making power conferred on 
Board bys. 157 of Customs Act, 1962 is same as rule-making power conferred on 
Central Government under s. 156-Reg.ulations should not be contrary ro rules 
made under s. 156-Project Import Regulations cannot be said to have travelled 
beyond purview ofstatltte-Board by defining" industrial plant" has not travelled 
beyond its brief-Chapter Note (2) does not amount to excessive delegation of 
Parliaments' essential legislative function. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Industrial Plant" occurring in Chapter 98 of Customs Tariff Act, 
1975-Meaning of 
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by its First and Second Schedules 
provided the rates of and custom duties to be levied under the Customs Act, 
1962. Chap,ter 98 introduced in Second Schedule prescribed a concessional 
rate of duty in respect of articles and items specified therein. As per Chapter 
654 
-
SUBHASH PHOTOGRAPHICS v. U. 0. I. 
655 
Note (1 ), if a particular article mentioned in Chapter 98 also fell under some 
other Chapter/heading, still such item would be governed by Chapter 98 and 
not by that other chapter/heading . 
. Photographic machinery was covered under Chapter 90 wherein the 
rate of duty was far higher, but for purposes of duty it was claimed as 
"industrial plant',' under Chapter 98.01. The expression "industrial plant" 
was defined neither in Customs Tariff Act nor in Customs Act. 
A 
B 
Chapter Note (2) of Cliapter 98 of the Customs Tariff Act laid down that 
Heading 98.01 would apply to all goods imported in accordance with the 
regulations made under. s.157 of the Act and the expressions used in heading c 
98.01 should have the meaning assigned to them in the said regulations. 
Accordingly, the Project Import Regulations, 1986 were framed. Regulation 
(3) of said Regulations defined "industrial plant" excluding from its ~urview 
industrial systems meant for "establishments designed to offer services of any 
description" such as. photographic studios, photographic film processing 
laboratories ete. 
D 
On coming into force of the Project Import Regulations, the Customs 
authorities refused to treat the photographic equipment imported by the 
appellants as industrial plant falling under heading 98.01 and sought to levy 
duty thereon under Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 
The appellant filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the 
validity of the Project Import Regulations, 1986. T6e writ petitions were 
dismissed. Hence the appeals by special leave. 
The appellant contended that regulations made by the Central Board of 
customs and Excise under s. 157 of the Customs Act 1962, not being subject 
to Parliament's scrutiny in the sense that they were not required to be laid on 
the Door of the Houses of Parliament u~der s. 159 stand on an inferior footing 
E 
F 
to rules ml:'de by the Central Government under s. 156, and therefore, the · 
regulation making power was confined only to peripheral and procedural 
matters and not for making substantive provisions; the Act spe~ified the 
G 
articles and things subjected to duty as also the rates of duty and such a · 
power was not left to be e~ercised by a delegate; the Parliament did not 
contemplate delegating to the Board the power to cut down the field and 
ambit occupied by the provisions ofihe Customs Act or the Customs Tariff 
Act and such a power, if delegated to the Board, would amount to excessive 
delegation oflegisla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.