LexUNITED OFFSET PROCESS PVT. LTD. versus ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-· UNITED OFFSET PROCESS PVT. LTD. v. ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AND ORS. OCTOBER 14, 1988 (SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.) Customs Tariff Act: Schedule Entries 90. JO, 90.2.'i and 84.35- Colour Scanner Chromagraph C-299-Assessability to customs duty- Whether printing machinery-No specific technical definition-Mean- ing attributed to the expression used by those dealing in it. A B c The appellant imported Colour Scanner Chromagraph C-299 under the Import Trade Control Policy for the year 1981-82, under the caption "printing machinery" and filed the papers for clearance under Tariff Item No. 84.35. The Assistant Collector assessed the goods under Tariff heading 90.25(1) and levied customs duty at the rate of 40% plus D 5% auxiliary duty plus 8% c.v.d. After payment.of duty as assessed the goods were cleared by the appellant, Later, on the Assistant Collector Issued a notice to the appellant for recovery of Less Char11es Demand amounting to Rs. 7 ,60,032. 72 on the ground that the Colour Scanner Is assessable under the heading 90.10 at the rate of 100% plus 20% plus 8% c.v.d. The contentions of the appellant that It was used only In printing E Industry and definitely not In photography or cinematagraphy lnboratorles and that It was capable of being used as ancillary equip· mcnt In the printing Industry only, failed before the Assessing Autho· rlty. In an appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, It observed tllat the goods In question could not be considered such goods as to attract duty under any of the Entries 84.35, 90.07 or 90.25, and held F tilat the only posslblllty left was that of Entry 90. lO under which the goods would attract duty. In an appeal before this Court the question involved In the matter was as to what was the proper tariff entry under which the goods In question fell and were as such. classifiable. Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal, G this Court, HELD: There is no specific technical definition as such provided in the Customs Tariff Act or In the notification. If there is no meaning attributed to the expressions used in the particular enacted statute then the items in the customs entries should be judged and analysed on the H 531 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988) Supp. J S._<::.R. A basis of how these expressions are used in the trade or industry or in the market or, in other words, how these are dealt with by the people who deal in them, provided that there is a market for these types of goods. This principle is well-known as classification on the basis of trade parlance. It is a well-known principle that if the definition of a particu- lar expression is not given, it must be understood in its popular or B common Sense, viz., in the sense how that expression is used everyday bY. those who use or deal with those goods. [535C-E] In incorporating items in the statutes like Excise, Customs or Sales-tax whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which to classify diverse products, articles and substance, resort should he had C not to the scientific and technical meaning of substance but to their popular meaning, viz., the meaning attached to these expressions by those dealing in them. [535E-F) In the instant case, there is no evidence as to how these goods are dealt with in the trade or industry. There is no technical definition of O the expressions used. In that view of the matter, the true approach of the Tribunal should have been to find out to the correct meaning of the items, i.e., the meaning attributed to the expression used by those deal- ing with it in the trade. [536A-B) C.I. T. Andhra Pradesh v. Mis Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad, E [1972) l SCR 168; King v. Planter's Company, [1951) CLR (EX.) 122; Two Hundred Chests of Tea, [1824) 6 L.ed. 128; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Washi Ahmed etc., [1977) 3 SCR 149; Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & Gen. Mills, [1963) Suppl 1SCR586; Ramavatar B_udhaiprasad v. Assistant S. T.O. Ako/a, [1962) l SCR 279; South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, [1968) 3 SCR 21 and Porritts & Spencer (Asia) F Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [1979) l SCC 82, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2129 of 1984. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.1984 of the Customs G Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. CD (SB) 153/8JB (Order No. 196/84-B). Harish Salve, Mrs. H. Wah
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.