LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws. This blog is only for information but not for legal opinions

Just for legal information but not form as legal opinion

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, July 25, 2015

whether Risograph is an office machine having duplicating function and thus to be classified under sub- heading 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or is it a printing machine to fall under sub-heading 8443.50. = Revenue has taken the position that it is a specie of duplicating machine and falls under the sub- heading 8472.90, viz. 'Other'. Though under both the sub-headings the import duty is 65%, however, insofar as printing machinery is concerned, by virtue of Notification No. 59/94-CUS dated March 01, 1994, which includes Chapter Heading 84.43, the duty is to be calculated at the rate of 25% ad valorem. = Risograph machine is in the nature of a screen printing machine and not duplicating machine. It would, therefore, be covered under sub-heading 84.43 and not 84.72. We, thus, allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and authorities below. In the given circumstances, there shall not be any order as to costs.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4513 OF 2005


|M/S. HCL LIMITED                           |.....APPELLANT(S)            |
|VERSUS                                     |                             |
|COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS                    |                             |
|NEW DELHI                                  |.....RESPONDENT(S)           |



                               J U D G M E N T


A.K. SIKRI, J.
                 Classification of the machines known  as  Risograph,  which
are imported by the appellant M/s. HCL Limited, is  the  issue  involved  in
the present appeal.  The question is as to whether Risograph  is  an  office
machine having duplicating function and thus to  be  classified  under  sub-
heading 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or is it a printing  machine
to fall under sub-heading 8443.50.  The main chapter under  which  both  the
sub-headings fall is Chapter 84 which deals with 'Machinery  and  mechanical
appliances'.  Sub-heading 84.43  thereof  relates  to  'Printing  machinery;
machines for uses ancillary to printing' and various entries under this sub-
heading are as follows:
|84.43      |  |Printing machinery; machines for uses   |       |
|           |  |ancillary to printing                   |       |
|           |  |- Offset printing machinery:            |       |
|8443.11    |- |Reel fed                                |65%    |
|8443.12    |- |Sheet fed, office type (sheet size not  |65%    |
|           |  |exceeding 22 x 36 cm)                   |       |
|8443.19    |- |Other                                   |65%    |
|           |  |- Letterpress printing machinery,       |       |
|8443.21    |- |Reel fed                                |65%    |
|8443.29    |- |Other                                   |65%    |
|8443.30    |- |Flexographic printing machinery         |65%    |
|8443.40    |- |Gravure printing machinery              |65%    |
|8443.50    |- |Other printing machinery                |65%    |
|8443.60    |- |Machines for uses ancillary to printing |65%    |
|8443.90    |- |Parts                                   |65%    |

Sub-heading 84.72, on the other hand, deals  with  'Other  office  machines'
and includes duplicating machines.  Various entries under  this  sub-heading
read as under:

|84.72      |  |Other office machines (for example,     |       |
|           |  |hectograph or stencil duplicating       |       |
|           |  |machines, addressing machines, automatic|       |
|           |  |banknote dispensers, coin-sorting       |       |
|           |  |machines, coin-counting or wrapping     |       |
|           |  |machines, pencil-sharpening machines,   |       |
|           |  |perforating or stapling machines)       |       |
|           |  |                                        |       |
|8472.10    |- |Duplicating machines                    |65%    |
|8472.20    |- |Addressing machines and address plate   |65%    |
|           |  |embossing machines                      |       |
|8472.30    |- |Machines for sorting or folding mail or |65%    |
|           |  |for inserting mail in envelopes or      |       |
|           |  |bands, machines for opening, closing or |       |
|           |  |sealing mail and machines for affixing  |       |
|           |  |or cancelling postage stamps            |       |
|8472.90    |- |Other                                   |65%    |

As per the appellant-assessee,  Risograph  machine  is  a  printing  machine
which should be covered by  sub-heading  8443.50,  namely,  'other  printing
machinery'.  On  the  other  hand,  the  respondent-Revenue  has  taken  the
position that it is a specie of duplicating machine and falls under the sub-
heading 8472.90, viz. 'Other'.   Though  under  both  the  sub-headings  the
import duty is 65%, however, insofar as printing machinery is concerned,  by
virtue of Notification No. 59/94-CUS dated March 01,  1994,  which  includes
Chapter Heading 84.43, the duty is to be calculated at the rate  of  25%  ad
valorem.  That is the precise reason behind  the  present  lis  between  the
parties

From the aforesaid, one thing is clear.  Risograph machine does not  fit  in
any of the specific descriptions contained either in  sub-heading  84.43  or
84.72.  Both the parties are trying to fit it  in  the  respective  residual
clauses viz. “Other printing machine” or “Other”  respectively.   Therefore,
what needs to be examined is as  to  whether  the  Risograph  machine  would
belong to the family of 'printing machinery' or it belongs to  the  clan  of
'duplicating machine'.  Right  from  the  Order-in-Original  passed  by  the
Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner of Customs  (Appeals)  to  the  Customs
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the  view  taken  is  in
favour of the Revenue thereby holding the Risograph machine  to  be  in  the
nature of a duplicating machine, which does not qualify  to  be  a  printing
machine at all.  The Tribunal, while holding that it is to be classified  as
an office machine having duplicating function, has relied upon  its  earlier
judgment in the case of  Pioneer  International  v.  Collector  of  Customs,
Kandla[1].  The attempt on the part of the appellant to demonstrate that  it
does printing job and is improperly referred to  as  a  duplicating  machine
has not cut any ice with the Tribunal which has chosen  to  follow  its  own
decision in the case of Pioneer International.  In a  case  like  this,  the
first query of  the  Court  was  as  to  whether  in  the  case  of  Pioneer
International any appeal was preferred.  Answer given was in  the  negative,
which means that the correctness of the order of  the  Tribunal  in  Pioneer
International was not tested in this Court.

Questioning the wisdom of the authorities below  with  the  contention  that
they have arrived at incorrect conclusion in this behalf, it was  argued  by
the learned counsel for the appellant that a detailed reply  dated  February
01, 1995 was filed to the show-cause notice dated January  13,  1995  issued
by the Assistant  Collector  of  Customs  contending  that  the  machine  is
classifiable under sub-heading 8443.50.  It was pointed out that in  support
of the aforesaid plea taken by the appellant it had enclosed  opinions  from
various customers who  were  using  the  Risograph  machine  as  a  printing
machine and  also  the  assessment  by  the  Japanese  Customs  specifically
classifying  the  machine  under   sub-heading   8443.50.    The   appellant
categorically brought to  the  notice  of  the  Assistant  Commissioner  the
following facts for the purpose of classification:
(a)   Riso Kagaku Corp, the  manufacturers  of  Risograph,  were  themselves
clearing  the  machine  under  sub-heading  8443.50  of  the  classification
without raising any objection;
(b)   test of  trade  parlance  was  in  favour  of  the  appellant  wherein
Risograph is  commercially  known  and  understood  as  a  digital  printing
machine in India as well as abroad, as evident from the declaration  of  the
manufacturers;
(c)   the mere fact that Risograph starts  with  an  original  cannot  be  a
ground to say that it is not a printing  machine  when  all  other  printing
machines require an original in some form or the other, be it  in  the  form
of plates or digital images;
(d)   HSN Explanatory  Notes  clearly  support  the  classification  of  the
machine under Chapter Heading 84.43 wherein it  specifically  provides  that
in addition to normal type of printing machine Chapter  Heading  84.43  also
cover special machines such as small office printing machines which  operate
by means of printing type or by offset process,  and  which  are  improperly
referred to as 'duplicating machines'  because  their  operating  principles
and appearances are similar to  those  of  duplicating  machines,  no  doubt
referring to machines like Risograph;
(e)   even if principles of duplication are involved, Chapter Heading  84.72
would not be attracted because the HSN  Explanatory  Notes  clearly  provide
that the said heading specifically excludes small printing machines even  if
intended for office use; and
(f)   Risograph machine functions in the principles of printing machines  as
it uses ink drums and squeegee rollers therein to print  images  similar  to
the process of screen printing.
                  Besides  this,  the  appellant  explained  in  detail  the
technical specifications of a Risograph  machine  and  its  functioning  and
also explained that the principle of Risograph is akin  to  screen  printing
for which the appellant submitted  technical  literature.   Learned  counsel
for the appellant submitted that the aforesaid aspects are  totally  ignored
by the authorities below and insofar as the Tribunal is  concerned,  it  has
conveniently omitted to look into these aspects  by  blindly  following  its
decision in Pioneer International and has  erred  in  the  following  manner
thereby:
(a)   The opinion rendered by the DGTD/Deputy Chief  Controller  of  Imports
and Exports is in favour that the Risograph is a printing machine  and  such
technical opinion has not been overcome by the impugned order.  There is  no
rebuttal to the opinions obtained from DGTD etc. by the Revenue.   A  number
of other buyers have certified that the machine is a  printing  machine  and
not rebutted by the Revenue.
(b)   The Japanese Customs have classified the Risograph only under  Chapter
Heading 84.43 and this position is not disputed even by the Indian Customs.
(c)   The scanner has been extensively used  in  the  printing  industry  to
transfer the image by utilising a thermal head  to  make  masters  used  for
printing, and hence the classification of the Risograph can  only  be  under
that Chapter Heading.
(d)   Risograph does not cut stencils but makes masters of the image  to  be
printed.
(e)   Chapter Heading 84.72 is a residuary entry and  the  HSN  specifically
rules out classification of the Risograph under that heading.
(f)   The bare literature of the Risograph Machine clearly  shows  that  the
machine is nothing but a printing machine.
(g)   The Tribunal in para of the order in Pioneer  International  has  held
that the Risograph is used  to  reproduce  copies  and  does  not  have  any
mechanism to print any original matter.  This is totally incorrect  inasmuch
as once the master is made then from the master, by the principle  principle
using ink, which flows through the pores of the paper/plastic master,  fresh
prints are taken out. There is no copying principle  as  in  a  photocopying
machine.
(h)   Operation Guide  itself  shows  how  the  master  is  first  made  and
thereafter prints are taken out and hence the Conclusion of the Tribunal  in
para 9 in Pioneer International is totally incorrect and perverse.
(i)   In the case of offset printing, as per the  Tribunal,  the  impression
is taken on a rubber roller and then on to the paper.  In other  words,  the
master is made which is transferred to the rubber rollers, which  thereafter
prints on the blank paper.  In the present case,  the  Risograph  makes  the
master and from the master prints are obtained and hence it is  nothing  but
a printing process.  The process of making master is akin  to  the  printing
plates made in the printing industry  and  there  is  no  escape  from  this
conclusion.  Moreover, the  inked  prints  obtained  as  per  the  technical
literature of the Risograph is the same as what is recorded in  para  10  of
the order in Pioneer International, that is 'offset printing  is  a  process
in which the inked impression is made on to the paper'.  In the case of  the
Risograph machine, ink goes through the pores of the long fibred paper  used
in the paper plastic master to make the prints.
(j)   The master made by the Risograph is not like the stencil  which  is  a
simple process in stencil duplicating machine, but  the  master  is  by  the
printing technology principles for making the master.  Such  stencil  making
process for printing is indeed  recognised  in  the  HSN  Explanatory  Notes
inasmuch as Heading 84.43 even  covers  screen  printing  machines  using  a
stencil screen band.  Thus, the Risograph, after making the  master,  prints
as in the case of an ordinary printing machine.  It is incorrect  to  equate
the Risograph master to an ordinary tencil cut out on a typewriter  for  use
in a stencil duplicating machine.

Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the  Revenue,  on
the other  hand,  took  us  through  the  reasons  given  by  the  Assistant
Commissioner as well as the  Commissioner  (Appeals)  in  support  of  their
findings  and  also  relied  upon  the  Tribunal's   decision   in   Pioneer
International for the reasons given therein and submitted that the  impugned
order of the Tribunal does  not  call  for  any  interference.   He  further
submitted that Risograph machine is not a machine to print original  matter.
 Master board is only for reproduction.  Giving  details  of  the  Risograph
machine, he submitted that the Risograph works by the process  of  automatic
digital scanning, thermal  screening  duplicating  systems.   The  principal
operations involved in the Risograph printer are  screening,  master  making
and printing.  The printer's scanner consists of  photo  sensors  comprising
of light emitting devices and of photo detector.   The  light  emitted  from
the light emitting devices strikes the original.  The light is reflected  by
lighter/white area of the original, whereas the light falling on the  darker
area of the original is absorbed.  The photo detector detects the  reflected
light and reads white and black areas  of  the  original,  as  read  by  the
scanner.  The thermal head, which consists  of  hundreds  of  heat  emitting
elements, is used to make the  master  copy  on  the  basis  of  the  signal
received from the image scanner.  This master copy is exactly similar  to  a
stencil used in a duplicating machine, which is then loaded on to the  drum.
 The ink which is carried in the drum pieces through the micro-pores in  the
master on the paper when it is fed underneath the  rotating  drum.   It  is,
therefore, submitted that Risograph is nothing but a transformation  of  the
duplicator with certain additional functions.  The  afore-mentioned  process
clearly indicates that  there  are  no  principles  of  offset  printing  or
photocopying involved.  It is further submitted that the principal  function
is that of a duplicating machine and cannot be treated as a offset  printing
machine.

He also submitted that on February 02, 1993, the Conference of Collector  of
Customs examined under which chapter  tariff  heading  Risograph  should  be
classified.   The  Collectors'  Conference,  after  examining  the  detailed
catalogue and working of Risograph, came to the conclusion that the  machine
is a duplicating machine and, therefore,  appropriately  classifiable  under
Heading 84.72.  The Collectors' Conference  also  came  to  conclusion  that
Risograph is more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 8472.10.

He,  thus,  summed  up  his  arguments  by  contending  that  printing   and
photocopying  were  somewhat  overlapping  in  the  instant  case.  However,
insofar as Risograph machine is concerned, unlike normal printing  machines,
original goes into the said machine and  master  copy  is  made  inside  the
machine and then copies are prepared/taken.  Simply because it  is  able  to
make 130 copies in one minute would not make it a printing machine,  but  it
was only a high quality photocopy machine with following features:
A.    The following three systems function in tandem to produce  130  copies
or so per minute:
|(a)  |Master making system   |: |High-speed Digital Scanning   |
|     |                       |  |and Thermal Screening system  |
|     |                       |  |                              |
|(b)  |Printing system        |: |Automatic Stencil Duplicating |
|     |                       |  |System                        |
|     |                       |  |                              |
|(c)  |Image scanning system  |: |Flat-bed scanner moving system|

            Thus, the specification itself  establishes  that  the  printing
system inside the Risograph is an Automatic Stencil Duplicating System.
B.    The input is the original and the output is the copy of the original.
C.    Technology in Risograph is simple,  highly  reliable,  speed-wise  far
more superior and cost-wise less expensive than a standard photocopier.
D.    Per contra, in printing there is no original.  The original has to  be
printed.
E.    The concepts of Common Parlance and  Principal  Function  ensure  that
the Risograph merits classification in sub-heading 8472.90.
            According to Mr. Radhakrishnan,  Common  Parlance  theory  shall
also apply in this case inasmuch  as  in  the  market  and  to  the  general
consumers of  this  product,  it  was  known  as  photocopying/  duplicating
machine only and not as printing machine, which was its principal function.

We have given our due consideration to  the  aforesaid  submissions  of  the
learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the  material  as
well as literature produced by the  learned  counsel  in  support  of  their
respective submissions.  In a matter like this it is obvious  that  we  have
to understand what is duplicating machine and what is printing  machine  and
how they differ from each other.  Thereafter, we will have to take  note  of
the technical specifications and functioning of  the  machine  in  question,
namely, Risograph Machine, to enable us to find an answer as to  whether  it
fits the description of a duplicating machine or a  printing  machine.   For
better  understanding  of  the   matter   and   to   answer   the   question
appropriately, we  may  first  scan  through  certain  statutory  and  other
relevant provisions.

As already noted above, Chapter Heading  84.72,  applies  to  'Other  office
machines, includes duplicating machines'. HSN Explanatory Notes  to  Chapter
Heading 84.72 explains that the term 'office machine' is to be  taken  in  a
wide  general  sense  to  include  all  machines  used  in  offices,  shops,
factories, workshops, schools, railway stations,  hotels,  etc.,  for  doing
'office  work'  (i.e.  work  concerning  the  writing,  recording,  sorting,
filing,  etc.,  of  correspondence,  documents,  forms,  records,  accounts,
etc.).  It, thereafter,  gives  the  description  of  duplicating  machines,
which is included in the aforesaid Heading, as under:
“Duplicating machines  of  the  hectograph  type  (e.g.  gelatin  or  spirit
duplicators), and stencil duplicating  machines  which  operate  with  waxed
paper stencils previously cut by a stylus or on a typewriter.   The  heading
includes small presses designed for use with hectographic apparatus.

            But it  excludes  small  printing  machines  (e.g.  letterpress,
lithographic or offset printing machines) even if intended  for  office  us,
and duplicators using embossed  plastic  or  metal  sheets  (including  such
machines  which  can  also  operate  with  stencils)  (heading  84.43),  and
photocopying or thermocopying apparatus  and  microfilm  apparatus  (Chapter
90).”


The  HSN  Explanatory  Notes  makes  it  amply  clear  that  small  printing
machines, even if  intended  for  office  use  and  even  duplicators  using
embossed plastic or metal sheet, which can also operate with  stencils,  and
photocopying etc. are specifically excluded.  What follows  from  the  above
is that if there is a small printing machine like letterpress,  lithographic
or offset printing machine, which does the printing work and  also,  at  the
same time, performs duplicating work with stencils  or  otherwise  and  even
photocopying work, it would still be treated as a printing machine  and  not
duplicating machine.

This would lead us to the description of 'printing machinery'  as  given  in
HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter Heading 84.43.  It is stated  therein  that
this heading covers all machines used for printing by  means  of  the  type,
printing books, plates or cylinders of the  previous  heading  and  excludes
the following:
“(a)   Office  hectograph  or  stencil  duplicating   machines,   addressing
machines and other office machines of headings 84.69 to 84.72.

(b)   Photocopying or thermocopying apparatus (e.g. for  the  production  of
blue prints, plans, etc., or for  the  reproduction  of  documents,  picture
postcards, etc.) (Chapter 90).”

            HSN  Explanatory  Notes  further  clarifies  that  this  Heading
includes the following:
“(1)  Machines for printing a  repetitive  design,  repetitive  wordings  or
overall colour on textiles,  wallpaper,  wrapping  paper,  rubber,  plastics
sheeting, linoleum, leather, etc.

(2)   Ancillary machinery (whether or  not  presented  separately)  such  as
feeders and folding  machines,  provided  they  are  specially  designed  as
ancillary machines to printing machines.”

Thereafter, description of 'printing machinery'  is  given  by  dividing  it
into three main categories, namely,  (i)  printing  presses,  (ii)  cylinder
printing machines, and (iii) Rotary presses.  Insofar  as  printing  presses
are concerned, the variety thereof is stated in the following manner:
“(i) Ordinary presses, used particularly for  printing  artists'  engravings
or proofs.   In  their  simplest  form  they  usually  consist  of  a  fixed
horizontal slab  (or  bed)  to  hold  the  forme,  cliché  or  plate  to  be
reproduced, and a movable plate which is pressed against the  bed  by  means
of a screw or lever mechanism; the paper  sheet  is  interposed  and  backed
with a special material (blanket) to distribute the pressure evenly;  inking
is done by hand or mechanically.

(ii)   Platen  presses;  these  are  much  more  powerful  but  similar   in
principle.  The movable pressure plate (or platen),  with  the  blanket  and
paper sheet is almost horizontal, and closes like a  jaw  against  the  type
matter held in position by the fixed vertical bed.  Normally,  such  presses
are equipped with a roller inking arrangement, but the group  also  includes
non-inking platen presses for dry relief printing.”

The aforesaid explanation acknowledges that this simplest form  of  printing
presses consists of a fixed slab (or bed)  to  hold  the  forme,  cliché  or
plate to be reproduced.  The ingredient of a plate from which there  can  be
reproduction is, thus, recognised as a process of printing.  It  would  also
be pertinent to mention that these very HSN Explanatory Notes  clarify  that
apart from  the  normal  types  of  printing  machines,  there  are  special
printing machines which are also covered by this  heading.   Examples  of  7
such machines are  specifically  given.   For  the  purpose  of  this  case,
printing machine described at serial No.7 would  be  pertinent.   Therefore,
we reproduce the said description hereunder:
“(vii)  Certain small office printing machines which  operate  by  means  of
printing type or by the offset process, and which are impropery referred  to
as “duplicating machines” because their operating principles and  papearance
are similar to those of duplicating machines.

            This group also  includes  colour  printing  machines,  used  to
colour, after they have been first printed in black and white,  special  art
editions,  playing  cards,  children's  illustrations,  etc.,  by  means  of
stencils or stencil-plates, the colour being applied by brushes, rollers  or
by spraying.”

What is significant is the recognition of  the  fact  that  there  are  many
special machines (obviously due to  advancement  of  technology)  which  are
small office printing machines and they operate by means  of  printing  type
or by the offset process.  It is also acknowledged  that  many  times  these
machines are confused with duplicating machines and improperly  referred  to
as such, primarily because of their appearance as duplicating  machines  and
similar operating principles.  Nevertheless, as per this Note these are  not
to be treated as duplicating machines,  but  printing  machines.  Underneath
the aforesaid special printing machines it is further mentioned  that  there
may be machines for printing a repetitive  design,  repetitive  words,  etc.
which would still qualify to be printing machines.   Example  of  four  such
machines are  given  in  this  inclusive  description  and  screen  printing
machines are specifically  included  therein.   The  aforesaid  aspects  are
demonstrated in the following specific words:
“Machines for printing a repetitive  design,  repetitive  words  or  overall
colour on textiles, wallpaper,  wrapping  paper,  linoleum,  leather,  etc.,
include:

(1)  Block printing machines in  which  blocks  engraved  with  the  design,
generally in relief, are repeatedly pressed on the cloth,  wallpaper,  etc.,
as it passes through the machine, thus producing a  continuous  design;  the
same machines are also used for printing separate designs (e.g.  on  scarves
or handkerchiefs).

(2)  Roller  printing  machines,  usually  consisting  of  a  large  central
cylinder (pressure bowl) around the periphery of which is  placed  a  series
of engraved colour rollers, each with its colour trough,  furnisher  roller,
doctor blades, etc.

(3)  Screen printing machines.  The material to be  printed  passes  through
the machine together with a stencil-screen band, the  colour  being  applied
through the stencil.

(4)  Yarn printing machines.  These produce colour effects on the  yarn  (or
sometimes on the roving before it is spun into yarn).”

Thus, a fine distinction between the printing machine on the  one  hand  and
duplicating machine on the other has to  be  borne  in  mind  with  specific
understanding that in many cases there may be confusion between  duplicating
machine and specific form  of  printing  machine,  namely,  screen  printing
machine.  We may point out at  this  juncture  that  the  endeavour  of  the
appellant is to establish that  Risograph  machine  is  nothing  but  Screen
Printing Machine.

After taking note of the basic  features  which  distinguish  printing  from
duplicating, let us understand the process adopted in Risograph machine.

Risograph machine consists of an automatic digital scanner, a  thermal  head
and a printing station.  The prints of tex/images which can  be  taken  from
these Risographs can be suitably enlarged or reduced as per the  user.   The
scanner portion of the Risograph consists of a photo  sensor  comprising  of
light emitting diodes and photo detectors.  The  light  emitted  from  these
diodes strike the original. The light falling  on  the  dark  areas  of  the
original are absorbed.  The photo detector then detects the reflected  light
and reads the white and  black  area  of  the  original  as  read  by  image
scanner.  The image thus formed by the scanner is a digital  image  and  not
an optical image or continuous image.  From the scanner, image  signals  are
transferred to thermal head.  The  thermal  head  is  used  to  make  master
necessary for printing,  based  on  the  signals  received  from  the  image
scanner.  The thermal head carrying the signal  received  from  the  scanner
touches the plastic film portion of the master.   Since  the  film  is  heat
sensitive, the plastic film melts while the base paper  remains  unaffected,
thus, forming the image of the original documents on the base  paper.   This
constitutes the master used for subsequent printing.   The  master  material
consists of film based on polyester plastic material boded with  long  fibre
Japanese type paper (through which ink can penetrate).  The master  film  is
a few microns  in  thickness  and  is,  thus,  thin.   The  polyester  based
material  is  bonded  to  the  long  fibre  Japanese  type  paper   by   co-
polymerization.  The plastic film used is  heat  sensitive.   The  paper  is
basically cellulose  web  through  which  ink  can  penetrate.   The  master
material is in the form of a roll of paper.  The paper  is  drawn  from  the
roll and thermal head prepares the master.  The prepared head  is  cut  from
the master and wound on the drum.  The surface of the drum is  a  fine  mesh
of steel wire so as to allow ink to pass through the drum  as  well  as  the
master while printing.  A squeegee roller is fitted against the  drum.   Ink
gets filled between the squeegee roller and steel mesh of the drum.   During
printing the squeegee  roller  rotates  thereby  forcing  the  ink  to  pass
through first, the drum surface, then to the  master  and  then  on  to  the
paper to be printed.

From the aforesaid description of the process adopted in Risograph  machine,
it becomes apparent that Risograph printing process is more akin  to  screen
printing.  As  already  pointed  out  above,  the  screen  printing  process
requires a stencil and a screen, with the stencil carrying the design to  be
printed.  This stencil is mounted against the screen.  The  printing  itself
takes place when the ink is squeegeed through the stencil  onto  the  screen
and ultimately onto the paper.  It is  the  screen  which  holds  the  image
area,  which  can  carry  either  a  pictorial  or   typographic   material.
Similarly, in the case of a Risograph, the long fibre  Japanese  type  paper
is the master through which the ink is pressed to  reproduce  the  image  or
text.  The screen printing stencil prepared is  equivalent  to  the  plastic
film coating  on  the  cellulose  fibre  of  Risograph  master.   Thus,  the
principles adopted for printing in the Risograph is akin to  that  found  in
screen printing.

At this stage, let us embark on a brief journey of printing  from  Gutenberg
to date to see how it has evolved over a period of time  leading  to  screen
printing which is one of the most sophisticated form of printing.

Printing, today, has  become  one  of  the  most  important  means  of  mass
communication  though  with  the  advent  of   computers   and   e-form   of
communication, in recent years its  importance  is  somewhat  dented.   Fact
remains that even today it remains an important means of mass  communication
along with Radio, Television  and  Films.   In  or  around  the  year  1440,
Johannes Gutenberg invented  and  developed  the  printing  press.   It  was
'printing with movable type'.  Gutenberg made separate pieces of metal  type
for each character to be  printed.   With  movable  type,  a  printer  could
quickly make many identical copies of a book.  Using this process, the  same
pieces of type could be used over and over again – to print  many  different
books.   Over  a  period  of  time,  there  has  been  improvement  in   the
methodology of printing with the advancement of technology.

However,  there  are  certain  steps  which  are  common  to  all   printing
processes.  These steps  include:  (i)  typesetting,  (ii)  proofing,  (iii)
preparing illustrations for reproduction, and (iv) page makeup.  Typesetting
is the process of putting into type the words to be  printed.   It  is  also
called  composition.   Typesetting  can  be  classified  as  (1)   hot-metal
typesetting or (2) photocomposition. Hot-metal type  printing  is  now  done
mostly by machine, which was earlier done by hand.  There are two main  kind
of machines that set metal type – the line caster and the Monotype.

Photocomposition (which is also called phototypesetting) on the  other  hand
includes  all  type  setting  methods  that   do   not   set   metal   type.
Phototypesetting   machines   produce   images   of   type   characters   on
photosensitive film or paper.  It is this method which is  now  widely  used
and has replaced hot-metal composition for most printing.   Most  commercial
printing today is done by one of the three processes: (1)  relief  printing,
(2) offset lithography, or (3) gravure printing.  Each  of  these  processes
uses a different kind of image carrier (the printing  surface  that  carries
the images to be printed).  In relief  printing,  the  printing  surface  is
raised above the level of the non-printing surface.  In offset  lithography,
the printing surface and the non-printing surface are  on  the  same  level.
In  gravure  printing,  the  printing  surface  is  below  the  non-printing
surface.

In addition to the aforesaid three kinds of processes, many  other  printing
processes have also been developed.  Notable among  those  are:  (a)  screen
process printing, (b) collotype printing and (c) flexographic printing.
(a)   Screen process printing requires a stencil and a fine  cloth  or  wire
screen.  The stencil carries the design to  be  printed.   It  can  be  made
simply by cutting the design out of paper.  The stencil is  mounted  against
the screen.  Ink is squeezed through the stencil  onto  the  surface  to  be
printed.  The design can also be traced directly on the screen, and the non-
printing parts painted out.  Or the screen can be  given  a  light-sensitive
coating and the design put on it photographically.  Screen  process  can  be
used to print on paper, glass, cloth, wood, or almost  any  other  material.
It is used to print on objects of almost all  sizes  and  shapes,  including
draperies, banners, bottles,  toys,  and  furniture.   Most  screen  process
printing is done on automatic or hand-operated presses.  Screen  process  is
also called silk-screen printing.

It is difficult  to  equate  Risograph  machine  with  duplicating  machine.
Duplicating, as opposed to  photocopying,  requires  the  preparation  of  a
master sheet which makes duplicates on a machine.  There are two main  types
of duplicating: stencil duplicating and spirit or hectographic  duplicating.
 Stencil duplicating is a technique which uses a master sheet  on  to  which
lettering is impressed as lines of perforations through  which  ink  can  be
squeezed  on  to  the  copy  paper.   Spirit  duplicating  (also  known   as
hectographic duplicating) is a  process/method  which  uses  strong  aniline
dye.  Originally the ink was transferred to a sheet of  gelatin  by  placing
the sheet of paper with the dye on it  in  a  shallow  tray.   The  moisture
retaining qualities of gelatin kept the ink moist, and the copy was made  by
pressing an ordinary sheet of paper on to the gelatin.  The modern  process,
which has replaced the aforesaid original  version,  was  developed  in  the
year 1923.  In this process, the master is in two parts, the lower one  like
a sheet of  carbon  paper  with  the  dye  on  the  top  side;  the  dye  is
transferred to the back of the top sheet when it is typed or  written  upon.
This sheet is then clipped to  a  revolving  drum,  and  the  sheets  to  be
printed are moistened with a volatile fluid which dissolves a thin layer  of
dye on  the  master,  thus  transferring  it  to  the  clean  paper.   In  a
duplicating machine, as provided for in the Customs Tariff Act, the  stencil
itself is made using a typewriter or stylus  i.e.  the  stencil  is  created
outside of the machine before the  same  is  fed  and  ink  directly  passed
through it.  The HSN Explanatory  Notes  to  Customs  Tariff  Heading  84.72
itself confirms this understanding wherein it  is  stated  that  duplicating
machines include the stencil duplicating machines which operate  with  waxed
paper stencils previously cut by a stylus or on a typewriter.

As pointed out above, the  Tribunal  has  simply  relied  upon  its  earlier
decision in Pioneer International.  We have gone through the said  judgment.
 In that case also the assessee had specifically argued  that  the  printing
was the principal function  of  the  Risograph  machine.   In  support,  the
assessee had relied upon the dictionary meaning assigned  to  the  'printing
machines' as well as 'duplicating machines' and it was argued  that  it  was
not a  duplicating  machine  or  a  photocopier.   It  was  emphasized  that
Risograph is a more sophisticated  machine  with  previously  unheard  print
quality; that the machine uses a method of scanning at  400  DPI  resolution
as used in Scanners in Printing Industry; that  instead  of  optical  system
(Lens & Mirror) as used in a photocopier, Risograph uses  a  charged  couple
device, as used in the scanners in printing industry;  that  the  method  is
digital only; that just like in Offset Printing which  uses  a  lithographic
plate made of aluminium or Zinc coated with photo  sensitive  material,  the
Risograph uses similar materials which are  heat  sensitive  called  master;
that a number of masters are  required  in  the  Risograph  for  multicolour
printing; that inversion of image is carried out during scanning and  master
making process itself; that all the facilities  available  in  printing  are
available in Risograph such as registering errors, adjustment of  margin  on
four sides of paper, margin for binding and fine tuning of  the  print.   It
was also  argued  that  the  process  of  scanning  and  master  making  are
ancillary to printing and are inbuilt in the machines; that  simply  because
certain processes are separately done in offset printing does not mean  that
where these processes are inbuilt  the  same  is  precluded  from  the  term
'printing machinery'.
                 However, the aforesaid  arguments  were  not  accepted  and
plea of the Department was acceded to with  the  solitary  observation  that
the Risograph machine is used only to reproduce copies  from  the  originals
and it does not have any  mechanism  to  print  in  original  matter.   This
observation, according to us, is contrary to plethora of material  produced,
coupled with the HSN Explanatory Notes, as noticed above, which  clinch  the
issue in favour of the assessee herein.  We are, therefore, of  the  opinion
that Pioneer International does not lay down the  law  correctly  and  over-
rule the said judgment.

The outcome of the  aforesaid  discussion  would  be  to  allow  the  appeal
holding that the Risograph machine is in the nature  of  a  screen  printing
machine and not duplicating machine.  It would, therefore, be covered  under
sub-heading 84.43 and not 84.72.

We, thus, allow the appeal and set aside the  orders  of  the  Tribunal  and
authorities below.  In the given  circumstances,  there  shall  not  be  any
order as to costs.

                             .............................................J.
                                                                (A.K. SIKRI)



                             .............................................J.
                                                     (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

NEW DELHI;
JULY 21, 2015
-----------------------
[1]   2000 (122) ELT 430 (Tri.)

pulp from the waste of jute bags or gunny bags would not be covered by the term 'rags' appearing in Notification dated 01-03-1994 as it could never be the intention to exclude non-conventional material from the benefit of the aforesaid Notification when that was precisely the purpose for which this Notification was issued to encourage use of non-conventional material for the purposes of manufacturing paper or paper products. Still, we would now like to take note of the dictionary meaning that is assigned to the aforesaid terms, that too from the 'Dictionary of Paper' by American Paper and Pulp Association, which obviously is the most relevant and authenticated dictionary for the purpose of the present case as what is in vogue and understood in paper industry is contained in such a dictionary. The Dictionary of Paper by American Paper and Pulp Association clearly makes a distinction between rag pulp and jute. Relevant portion of the book (contained at pages 22 and 26) is reproduced below: “Cotton fibre or rag pulps are used principally in the manufacture of fine and technical papers as listed below, and in the manufacture of roofing papers..” Jute Pulp is used in the manufacture of wrapping paper and tag stock. It is also used to some extent in buff drawing paper. The major supply of jute comes from old sacking, burlap and string...” Jute … Old gunny and sacking are used as raw materials in papermaking” The book 'Pulp and Paper Chemistry and Chemical Technology' by James P. Casey again distinguishes between rags and jute in the following manner: “Use of Rags for Papermaking High-grade cotton and, to some extent, linen rags are used to make the best grades of bond, writing and technical papers, where permanence, high strength, and distinctive quality are of interest. Pulping of Jute Whole jute is rarely used for pulp and papermaking. Salvaged products, such as old jute sacks and burlap, are the materials available to the paper mills. Waste jute is cut into small pieces and dusted before cooking.. Jute pulps are used for the manufacture of high-strength bags, wrappings, drawing papers, and tags.” Dictionary of Paper by TAPPI defines 'rag pulps' as under: “Papermaking fibers made from new or old cotton textile cuttings. The term may also apply to cotton linters, i.e., the short fibers which adhere to the cotton seed after the ginning process. Rag pulps are used in papers where permanence and durability are needed, e.g., ledger, blueprint, map, currency papers etc.” Indian Standard Glossary of Terms used in Paper Trade and Industry – IS 4661 : 1999 defines 'jute' and 'rag pulp' as under: “Jute : (a) An Indian bast fibre, white jute (Corchorus Capsularis) and tossa jute (C. Olitorius) which is used for the manufacture of coarse sacking and bags (gunny sack). Old gunny and sacking are used as raw materials in papermaking... Rag Pulps: Papermaking fibres of cotton made from materials like new or old cotton textile cuttings or cotton linters, mill run, fly cotton, cotton waste etc. Rag pulps are used in papers where permanence and durability are needed, for example, ledger, blueprint, map, currency papers etc." Thus, almost all the books on the subject uniformly define 'rag' or 'rag pulp' as one which is made from cotton waste or cotton textile material. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue could not point out to a single dictionary or could take us through any technical literature which even remotely suggests that jute gunny bags come under the category of 'rags' in the context of paper technology. The Tribunal has simply brushed aside the aforesaid material with a mere observation that it is not relevant and this approach of the Tribunal cannot be justified. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is to hold that the impugned decision of the Tribunal does not stand judicial scrutiny and warrants to be set aside. We, thus, allow this appeal, quash the order of the Tribunal and restore the order that was passed by the Commissioner. No costs.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4908 OF 2005


|M/S. COASTAL PAPER LTD.                    |.....APPELLANT(S)            |
|VERSUS                                     |                             |
|COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VISAKHAPATNAM   |.....RESPONDENT(S)           |


                               J U D G M E N T


A.K. SIKRI, J.
                 The appellant (hereinafter referred to as  the  “assessee”)
is a paper mill which is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture  of  paper.
For the manufacture of paper, the assessee  uses  various  conventional  raw
materials and also  non-conventional  raw  materials,  namely,  waste  gunny
bags, jute waste etc. The assessee is exigible  to  Central  Excise  on  the
aforesaid product, namely, paper manufactured by it, which the assessee  has
been paying to the respondent (hereinafter referred  to  as  the  “Revenue”)
from time to time. In order to encourage production of paper by use of  non-
conventional raw material, the Government of India issued  Notification  No.
22/94-CE dated 01.03.1994 which assures concessional rate of duty at 5%  for
“paper and paperboard or articles made from non-conventional material”.  The
condition which is contained in the  said  Notification  that  needs  to  be
fulfilled in order to avail the benefit  thereof  to  pay  the  concessional
rate of duty reads as under:

“If  such  paper  and  paperboard  or  articles  made  therefrom  have  been
manufactured, starting from the stage of pulp, in a factory, and  such  pulp
contains not less than 75 per cent by weight of  pulp  made  from  materials
other than bamboo, hard woods, soft woods, reeds (other  than  sarkanda)  or
rags.”

As per the aforesaid Notification, following conditions are to be  satisfied
in order to avail the benefit:
(i)   Manufacture of paper and paperboard or articles made therefrom  should
start from stage of pulp, in a factory,
(ii)  Such pulp should contain not less than 75%  by  weight  of  pulp  made
from materials other than bamboo, hard woods, soft woods, reeds (other  than
sarkanda) or rags.
                 It, thus, specifies certain materials  which  are  excluded
from the Notification, meaning thereby, if  the  pulp  is  made  from  those
specific materials, namely, bamboo hard  woods,  soft  woods,  reeds  (other
than sarkanda) or rags then the manufacturer would not be  entitled  to  the
benefit of this Notification.
The assessee herein is manufacturing  paper  out  of  pulp  of  waste  gunny
bags/jute waste and on the  manufacture  of  paper  from  the  pulp  of  the
aforesaid waste, the assessee wants to pay concessional rate of excise  duty
as its contention is that pulp of waste gunny bags or jute  waste  does  not
fall in any of the materials mentioned in the Notification. The Revenue,  on
the other hand, has  taken  the  position  that  the  pulp  of  waste  gunny
bags/jute waste is nothing but pulp of 'rags' and  since  the  Notification,
particularly, disentitles the benefit thereof  if  the  pulp  is  made  from
rags, the assessee is not covered by the said  Notification.  The  question,
therefore, that falls for consideration is  as  to  whether  pulp  of  waste
gunny bags/jute waste is to be treated as the pulp made  from  the  material
'rags'. Before we answer this question, it is deemed necessary to take  note
of the other related Notifications touching upon the subject matter as  well
as history of the present litigation which has lauded  the  matter  to  this
Court.

Notification No. 22/94-CE dated 01.03.1994, with which we are concerned,  is
not the first Notification which permitted concessional rate of excise  duty
in case of manufacture of paper or paper products by using  non-conventional
raw material. First Notification, in this behalf, was issued on  01.03.1973,
i.e. Notification No. 42/73-CE wherein such kind of lesser  rate  of  duties
was prescribed in respect of all sorts of paper  other  than  newsprint  and
all varieties of  boards,  containing  not  less  than  40%  by   weight  of
bagasse,  jute  stalks  or  cereals  straw  in  the  form  of   pulp.   This
Notification was replaced by another Notification No. 128/77-CE dated 18-06-
1977 where the manufacture of the paper (other than some specified kinds  of
papers mentioned therein) contained not less than  50%  by  weight  of  pulp
made from bagasse, jute stalks, cereals straw or waste paper. Certain  other
conditions were also  mentioned  in  this  Notification  pertaining  to  the
description of paper mills manufacturing such paper with which  we  are  not
concerned.  There  have  been  further  Notifications  from  time  to   time
modifying/amending  the  aforesaid  conditions  which  again  need  not   be
referred to as  not  relevant  for  our  purposes.  It  would,  however,  be
necessary to refer to the Notification 48/91-CE dated 25.07.1991 which  held
the field prior to issuance of Notification  No.  22/94-CE  with  which  are
concerned. In this Notification No. 48/91-CE, concessional rate of duty  was
provided in respect of writing and printing paper falling under the  heading
No. 48.02 and uncoated kraft paper, falling under heading No. 48.04  of  the
First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,  1985  (for  short,  'CETA,
1985') on certain conditions mentioned in the proviso contained in the  said
Notification which was to the following effect.
“Provided that such paper contains not less than 75% by weight of pulp  made
from jute, jute waste (including hessian waste and  old  gunny  bag  waste),
mesta, rice straw, wheat straw or bagasse or mixture thereof or  mixture  of
two or more of the pulps of the aforementioned materials.”

            The purpose of mentioning to the aforesaid  Notification  is  to
point out this Notification listed  those  materials,  the  use  whereof  to
manufacture paper and paper products entitled the manufacturer  to  get  the
benefit of the Notification.  Thus the requirement  was  to  show  that  the
pulp was made from any of the said materials or from the  mixtures  thereof.
It can be termed as 'Positive List'. In contrast, Notification No.  22/94-CE
did not contain the list of those materials from which pulp was required  to
be made and used for the purpose of manufacture of paper.  On the  contrary,
this Notification contained excluded category of  materials,  i.e.,  if  the
pulp was made from those specified materials (which included rags  as  well)
then the benefit of Notification was not  available.  The  effect   of  this
Notification is that if the pulp is made  from  any  other  non-conventional
material which is not spelt  out  in  the  proviso,  it  would  qualify  for
concessional rate of duty in terms of the said Notification.  The  materials
mentioned in this list, for the sake of convenience, can  be  classified  as
'Negative List'.  Now  the  requirement  was  to  show  that  paper  is  not
manufactured  from  the  pulp  of  any  of  the  enlisted  material.   Thus,
according to Notification No. 22/94-CE, the exemption is  available  if  the
paper is made from pulp which contains not less  than  75%  by  weight  made
from   non-conventional   materials.    The   prohibited   material    which
disqualifies from said concessional rate is bamboo or hardwood  or  softwood
or reed or rags.

There have been some amendments in the  Notification  No.  22/94-CE  in  the
subsequent years.  During the financial years  1995-96,  1997-98  and  1999-
2000 (till October 1999), the concessional rate  of  duty  is  provided  for
paper made of pulp containing not less than 75% by weight of pulp made  from
materials other than bamboo, hard wood, soft wood, reeds  or  rags.  But  in
respect of the year 1996-97, the concession was given to paper made of  pulp
containing not less than 50% by weight of pulp  made  from  materials  other
than bamboo, hard wood, soft wood, reeds or rags.

Reverting to the case of the assessee, it has been using old or  used  gunny
bags/jute waste for the manufacture of paper.  It was availing  the  benefit
of  the  aforesaid  notification  and  paying  concessional  rate  of  duty.
However, on 28.04.2000, a show-cause notice was issued  by  the  Revenue  to
the appellant stating therein that the  paper  manufactured  by  using  jute
bags/  gunny  bags  are  not  eligible  for   exemption   under   the   said
notifications or successor notifications whereby the aforesaid  notification
was amended from time to time.  Extended period of  limitation  was  invoked
under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise  Act,  1944  (for  short,
“Act”) and demand of differential central excise duty for  the  period  from
01.04.1995 to 31.10.1999 was given. This show cause notice was  followed  by
two more show cause notices dated 16.05.2000  and  13.03.2001  covering  the
period from November, 1999 to May, 2000. The assessee  contested  the  stand
taken by the Revenue in these show cause notices, taking the  position  that
pulp made out of jute bags/gunny bags entitled the  assessee  to  avail  the
benefit of the said Notification as the paper from the waste  of  jute  bags
was non-conventional method. In support, the assessee also gave material  in
the form of technical literature and expert opinion.  Personal  hearing  was
provided   by   the   Commissioner   of   Central   Excise,   Visakhapatnam.
Thereafter,  the  Commissioner  passed  Order-in-Original  dated  02.05.2005
accepting the contention of the assessee and dropping  all  the  three  show
cause notices. He also held that  show  cause  notice  dated  28.04.2000  is
barred by limitation as well under Section 11A of the  Act  as  the  Revenue
was not entitled to invoke the proviso to Section  11A  and  claim  extended
period of limitation.

A perusal  of  the  order  of  the  Commissioner  would  disclose  that  the
Commissioner was persuaded by the fact that  the  purpose  of  issuing  such
Notification was to  encourage   the  use  of  waste  from  non-conventional
materials  as  raw  materials  for  the  purpose  of  manufacture  and   in,
particular, use of such raw  materials  like  jute  waste,  mesta,  baggase,
hessain, old gunyy bag waste, rice straw, wheat straw etc.  and  reduce  the
use of bamboo, hard wood, soft wood etc. to save forest. He also noted  that
before 1994, Notifications contained list of  those  materials  use  whereof
qualified for the concessional rate (i.e.  the  'Positive  List')  and  from
1994, the 'Negative List' was prescribed by excluding only the  set  of  raw
materials,  use  of  which  did  not  qualify  for  the   benefit   of   the
Notification. The Commissioner also referred to the speech  of  the  Finance
Minister to emphasize that the Notification has evolved  in  a  eco-friendly
manner  with  more  and  more  encouragement  for  use  of  non-conventional
materials. Going by the aforesaid spirit of the  Notification,  when  it  is
found that jute and gunny bags were included  in  the  'Positive  List'  and
waste therefrom is widely known  as  non-conventional  method  of  producing
paper and paper products, these materials should not be treated  as  'rags',
inasmuch as while including rags in the 'Negative List' intention could  not
be to encompass waste of gunny bags and jute bags  within  said  expression.
In the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner,  he  pointed  out  that
there is no definition of 'rags' in the Notification and,  similarly,  there
is no definition of jute pulp  in  any  Notification  which  could  help  in
tracing any description of gunny bags waste. The  Commissioner  opined  that
for this reason, it  was  prudent  to  fall  back  upon  the  definition  or
standard text or other notifications which define these  words.  Thereafter,
he referred to the 'Glossary of Terms used in Paper Trade and Industry'  for
the adoption of definition/description of jute, jute paper, jute  pulp,  rag
pulps, rags etc. and on that basis concluded as under:
“37.  The meaning of the word Rags as they have  not  been  defined  in  the
notification itself, has to be derived from  the  contemporaneous  evidence.
From the definitions of Rag pulp, jute pulp available in the IS Glossary  of
Terms used in Paper Trade and Industry,  the  definition  of  Rags  appended
with the Notification No. 8/96-CE and  the  definition  of  rag  in  various
judgments mentioned in para 26.A it  conveys  the  meaning,  in  unambiguous
terms, that old used gunny bags would not be equated with rags.

38.   The show cause notice has gone to add that jute  waste  is  not  gunny
bag waste and as the party has not mentioned in their record jute waste  and
not gunny bag waste, there has been suppression of information.  So long  as
we hold that rags are not gunny bag waste and  gunny bags are  not  excluded
raw materials for the purpose of concession, it  does  not  matter  how  the
gunny bag is described  in  documents.  The  amendments  to  Central  Excise
Notification No. 48/91 dated 25.7.91 vide  30/93  shows  unambiguously  that
Jute Waste shall include old gunny bag waste. Therefore,  it  still  remains
correct that gunny bag waste can be described as waste of jute products  and
in extension would be includible in Jute Waste. Therefore, there is no  mis-
declaration in raw  material  account.  In  addition,  this  description  by
itself would not prove the point of the show  cause  notice.  As  the  basic
premises on which the SCN stands is  not  available,  other  allegations  of
suppression and application of extended period and attraction under  Section
11AC and 11AB or violations under Rule 226 and 173Q are not sustainable.

39.   Therefore, the allegation listed in Para 42 of the show  cause  notice
regarding violation of Rule   173B  by  misdeclaring  gunny  waste  as  jute
waste, Rule 173G regarding willful  suppression  of  Raw  Material  Account.
Rule 9(1)  regarding  discharge  of  appropriate  duty  and  173F  regarding
determination of correct rate of duty pertaining to clearances of goods  out
of gunny bag pulp do not stand on basis of above evidence of disclosure.”


The Revenue was not satisfied with the  aforesaid  outcome  and,  therefore,
preferred an appeal  against  the  order  of  the  Commissioner  before  the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal  (for  short,  'CESTAT').
The CESTAT has, vide impugned order dated 04.02.2005, upset the decision  of
the Commissioner on merits,  holding  that  the  waste  of  jute/gunny  bags
amounts to  'rags'  and,  therefore,  pulp  made  out  of  it  and  use  for
manufacture of paper would not be covered by the said Notification.

While arriving at this conclusion, the  Tribunal  remarked  that  inferences
drawn by the Commissioner from  the  Finance  Minister's  Budget  speech  or
Board's circular do not appear to be flowing either from the said speech  or
from Board's clarification and the reasoning of  the  Commissioner  in  this
respect was  false.   It  also  rejected  the  contention  of  the  assessee
predicated on HSN Chapter Headings. According to the Tribunal, pulp  out  of
rags was specifically excluded from the Notification.  'Rag'  is  understood
to be worn out, soiled and torn of a textile material.  In view thereof,  it
was not necessary to refer to any dictionary,  Glossary  of  Terms  used  in
Paper and Paper Industry or words and phrases to find  out  the  meaning  of
'rags'. The relevant portion, discussing this aspect reads as under:
“11.   We are unable to agree with this contention.   There  is  no  denying
the fact that gunny bags/jute bags are  articles  of  textiles.  Admittedly,
such jute bags which shows signs of wear and tear are excluded from  heading
63.09 and are classified with the corresponding new articles  under  heading
63.05. But there is another category of old gunny bags  which  are  so  worn
out, soiled or torn beyond clearing or repairs and are  generally  fit  only
for the recovery of the fibres for the manufacture of  paper  etc.  This  is
the separate category of old gunny bags which is different from  gunny  bags
showing only signs of wear. Thus a rag is one which is worn out, soiled  and
torn of a textile material. If that is the meaning  of  rags,  there  is  no
need to refer to any dictionary, glossary of terms used in paper  and  paper
industry or S.B. Sarkar's Words and Phrases  to  find  out  the  meaning  of
rags. The respondent uses torn, soiled etc. gunny bags to make  pulp.  Gunny
bag is a textile material.  We agree  with  the  Revenue's  contention  that
rags can be  made of any textile material or textile articles  and  are  not
limited to pieces of cotton or articles made of cotton.”


However, on the issue of limitation, the Tribunal  has  concurred  with  the
order of the Commissioner and rejected the appeal of  the  Revenue  to  that
extent.  The net result is that the demand contained in  show  cause  notice
which pertained to the period from 01.04.1995 to  31.10.1999  is  concerned,
the same is treated as time barred.  Insofar  as  learned  counsel  for  the
assessee is concerned, in his endeavour to demonstrate that  waste  of  jute
bags/gunny bags cannot be termed as 'rags' in the sense the term is used  in
the Notification, he  laid  great  stress  on  the  principle  of  purposive
interpretation that needs to be given to the Notification. Thus main  thrust
of his argument was that the objective  of  the  Notification  to  give  its
benefit to those who are using waste from  non-conventional  materials.   He
submitted that  it  was  well-known  that  jute/gunny  bags  were  the  non-
conventional methods which was well recognised in the commercial  world.  To
put it in nutshell,   he based his arguments on the  reasons  given  by  the
Commissioner. He also submitted that the reasons given by the Tribunal  were
faulty and in the absence of any definition of 'rags' in  the  Notification,
dictionary meaning could be relied upon as was held by the Supreme Court  in
the case of Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central  Excise,
Baroda[1].

Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel  appearing for the  respondent,
likewise, did the same exercise but  in  reverse,  i.e.,  he  supported  the
reasons given by the Tribunal with the submission that it  was  a  blemished
decision of the Commissioner based on faulty  reasoning  which  has  rightly
been reversed by the Tribunal. Apart from relying  upon  the  reasons  which
persuaded the Tribunal to conclude the matter in favour of the  Revenue,  he
strenuously argued that since the excise duty is leviable  on  the  product,
any assessee taking advantage of the exemption notification had to  strictly
come within the four corners of the said Notification  to  get  the  benefit
thereof. Adopting  this  line  of  argument,  he  also  submitted  that  the
Notification   mentions   the   word   'rags'   simplicitor   without    any
qualifications or exceptions. Therefore, wherever it is found that  pulp  is
from the waste material known as 'rags', the said product would come in  the
excepted category. He emphasized that since it  could  not  be  denied  that
waste of  gunny  bags/jute  bags  is  known  as  'rags',  if  the  paper  is
manufactured from the pulp from the  waste  of  gunny  bags/jute  bags,  the
assessee would be disentitled to claim the benefit of the Notification.

We have considered the aforesaid submissions with reference  to  record  and
the plethora of material produced before us by both the  sides.   It  cannot
be denied that if  one  has  to  look  into  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the
expression 'rags' and on that basis construe the Notification  in  question,
the assessee would not be entitled to the concessional rate of  excise  duty
inasmuch as the waste of gunny bags or jute bags would be called  'rags'  in
ordinary sense of the term.  However, whether case can be decided with  such
simplistic overtones,  is  the  question.  We  are  of  the  view  that  the
expression 'rags' appearing in the Notification has to be  construed  having
regard to the attendant circumstances, the context  in  which  the  same  is
used in the said Notification as well as the purpose  for  which  this  term
has appeared in the Notification. At the same time, it is also necessary  to
go behind the objective for which  Notification  itself  is  issued  thereby
giving it a purposive interpretation, which  has  become  cardinal  rule  of
interpretation. In our  opinion,  it  is  only  after  examining  all  these
factors that the final decision should be arrived at.

Right from 1977, the Central Government  prescribed  concessional  rates  of
excise duty for paper made from non-conventional raw  material,  subject  to
certain conditions. History of these Notifications, in  brief,  has  already
been traversed by  us  in  the  beginning.  The  purpose  for  issuing  such
Notifications is clear, namely, to encourage the manufacturers of the  paper
and paper products to use non-conventional technology in contrast  with  the
conventional technology of using pulping bamboo or wheat. The reason is  too
obvious. Use of bamboo or wheat for  the  manufacture  of  paper  and  paper
products needs  cutting of trees which in turn has  the  devastating  effect
of deforestation. It leads to degradation of  environment  and  the  adverse
impact of deforestation with serious consequences  are  now  well-known.  On
the other hand with the adoption of non-conventional methods  of  production
by taking pulp from the waste of gunny bags/jute waste, mesta,  rice  straw,
wheat straw, bagasse etc., not only the said waste is utilised in  a  useful
and constructive manner, it saves environment as  well.  Such  a  benevolent
purpose for issuing these Notifications has been emphasized by  the  Finance
Ministers themselves from time to time in the budget speeches.

The tenor and language of various Notifications issued in this  behalf  from
time to time also reflect the experience which was gained over a  period  of
time. Whereas in the beginning,  Notification(s)  prescribed  the  'Positive
List'  of the  materials  that  had  to  be  used  to  get  the  benefit  of
concessional rate of duty, the thrust underwent a conceptual  transformation
and changed to the 'Negative List', i.e.  mentioning  only  those  materials
use whereof  will  not  entail  the  benefit,  thereby  making  the  benefit
available to  all  other  forms  of  non-conventional  materials.  This  was
because of the reason that experience has shown that it was  not  proper  to
mention the non-conventional material by putting them in a straitjacket  and
to provide that  all  kinds  of  non-conventional  materials  used  for  the
manufacture of paper should qualify for  concessional  rate  excepting  only
those which need not be given such a benefit. This thrust,  therefore,  from
'Positive List' to 'Negative List' is of great significance and  has  to  be
kept in mind.

Proceeding further therefrom, it is important to note  that  the  pulp  made
from jute, jute waste including hessian waste and old gunny bags  waste  are
specifically included in  the  'Positive  List'  contained  in  Notification
dated 17.09.1990.  Thus, as per  the  said  Notification  if  the  paper  is
manufactured from the pulp made from the waste of the  aforesaid  materials,
the benefit of concessional rate was admissible.  To put  it  otherwise,  it
has always been  clearly understood that jute or jute  waste  including  old
gunny bag waste is non-conventional material. Once that is  accepted,  could
the intention behind Notification No. 22/1994-CE be  to  exclude  this  non-
conventional  material  with  the  insertion  of  the  word  'rags'  in  the
'Negative List'. It seems difficult to comprehend such a kind of outcome  or
situation.

With the aforesaid introduction, we reproduce the  'Negative  List'  of  the
materials specified in the Notification 22/94-CE. It mentions 'bamboo,  hard
woods, soft woods, reeds (other than Sarkanda) or rags'.  What  is  intended
by mentioning that pulp made from the aforesaid material  would  not  entail
benefit. Obviously, all other materials, namely, bamboo,  hard  woods,  soft
woods, and reeds are conventional raw materials.  These  are  the  materials
which have direct bearing on cutting of trees and in  turn  on  environment.
Therefore, 'rags' has to be read ejusdem generis.  It has to be  the  specie
of the earlier kind of materials mentioned  therein.   Otherwise,  it  would
not make any sense. Admittedly, jute waste or  for  that  matter  gunny  bag
waste  have  no  adverse  impact  on  environment.    Significantly,   while
mentioning reeds, the Sarkanda is specifically excluded therefrom.

It needs to be emphasized that prior to 1984, the exemption  to  paper  made
from unconventional raw materials was  available  only  when  the  paper  is
manufactured  from  the  specified  non-conventional  raw  materials.    For
example, Notification No. 46/83-CE dated 01-03-1983 prescribed  concessional
rate of excise duty for paper containing not less than  fifty  per  cent  by
weight of pulp made from bagasse, jute stalks, cereal straw, elephant  grass
(Imperata Cylindrica), mesta (Kneaf) or waste paper.  Thus, jute stalks  was
specified as a non-conventional raw material  in  the  notification  itself.
However, vide Budget of 1984, the scope of the exemption to paper made  from
non-conventional  raw  materials  was  widened  and  relevant   portion   of
Notification No. 25/84-CE dated 01-03-1984 reads as under:
“In exercise of the powers …. the Central Government  hereby  exempts  paper
and paperboards …. manufactured out of pulp containing not less than 50  per
cent by weight of pulp made from materials (other  than  bamboo,  hardwoods,
softwoods, reeds or rags)...”

             Thus,  right  from  the  year  1984,  the   coverage   of   the
Notification was widened inasmuch as any materials other than the  specified
ones would be considered as non-conventional raw  materials  and  the  paper
made therefrom would be eligible for the exemption.  This  is  also  evident
from the Finance Minister's speech while presenting the Finance Bill,  1984,
relevant portion of which reads as under:
“108... As a further measure of relief,  I  proposed  to  reduce  the  basic
excise duty on printing and writing paper and also kraft paper  produced  by
large  paper  mills  by  Rs.  425  per  metric  tonne,   and   corresponding
concessions are being  given  on  the  duty  leviable  on  such  paper  when
unconventional   raw   materials   are   used    in    their    manufacture.
Simultaneously, the range of permissible  unconventional  raw  materials  is
being expanded.”

The Budget Explanatory Notes to Finance Bill, 1984 (at para  8.6)  reads  as
under:
“8.6  Another  change  made  is  with  regard  to  extending  the  scope  of
unconventional raw  materials  by  paper  mills  for  the  purpose  of  duty
concessions.  It  has  not  been  proided  that  the  concessions  would  be
available for use of any raw materials (other than bamboo, hard woods,  soft
woods, reeds and rags) to the extent of at least 50% by weight  of  pulp  in
the manufacture of paper (with few  exceptions)  or  paperboard.   In  other
words, so long as the percentage by weight of pulp bamboo, hard woods,  soft
woods, reeds or rags is not more than 50%, the concessional rates of  excise
duty would apply.”

Thus, all the above materials and the  notifications  clearly  suggest  that
the Government itself distinguished between jute bags/gunny  bags  and  rags
and the exemption was being extended  to  paper  made  from  old  jute/gunny
bags.

No doubt, such  exemption  Notifications  call  for  strict  interpretation.
However, at the same time when the expression 'rags' is not defined  in  the
Notification, it has to be assigned a particular meaning which  defines  the
purpose for which such a Notification was issued giving  by  plain  meaning,
even when there is a total disconnect  between  the  said  meaning  and  the
Notification, may lead to absurd  results  as  it  would  exclude  the  non-
conventional material in the form of waste from  jute  bags  or  gunny  bags
even when this very material was there in the 'Positive List' and  qualified
for exemption. This  Court  has  held  in  the  case  of  H.M.M  Limited  v.
Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi[2] that the benefit of  Notifications
has to be interpreted by going into the purpose of beneficial  notifications
and that one does not have to go only by the language employed therein.

To the same effect is the judgment of this Court  in  Collector  of  Central
Excise and Others v. Himalayan  Cooperative  Milk  Product  Union  Ltd.  and
Others[3] where this  Court  remarked  that  'purpose  and  policy  decision
behind the notification should not be defeated by  giving  it  some  meaning
other that what is clearly and plainly flowing from it.  At this  stage,  it
would also be pertinent to refer to another judgment of this Court in  Rohit
Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of  Central  Excise[4],  wherein  the
Court held that there would be circumstances where a generic word is  to  be
given limited meaning by reason of its context.  We  would  like  to  borrow
the following discussions therefrom:
“10.  The principle of statutory interpretation  by  which  a  generic  word
receives  a  limited  interpretation  by  reason  of  its  context  is  well
established.  In  the  context  with  which  we  are   concerned,   we   can
legitimately draw upon the "noscitur a sociis"  principle.  This  expression
simply means that "the meaning of a word is to be judged by the  company  it
keeps." Gajendragadkar, J. explained the scope  of  the  rule  in  State  v.
Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (1960-2 S.C.R. 866) in the following words:

            "This rule, according to Maxwell, means that, when two  or  more
words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled  together  they
are understood to be used in their cognate  sense.  They  take  as  it  were
their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted  to  a
sense analogous to a less general. The same  rule  is  thus  interpreted  in
"Words and Phrases" (Vo. XIV, p. 207): "Associated words take their  meaning
from one another under the doctrine of nosciture a  sociis,  the  philosophy
of which is that the meaning of  a  doubtful  word  may  be  ascertained  by
reference to the meaning of words  associated  with  it;  such  doctrine  is
broader than the maxim Ejusdem Generis." In fact the latter maxim  "is  only
an illustration or specific application of  the  broader  maxim  noscitur  a
sociis". The argument is that certain essential features or  attributes  are
invariably associated with the words "business and trade" as  understood  in
the  popular  and  conventional  sense,  and  it  is  the  colour  of  these
attributes which is taken by the other words used in the  definition  though
their normal import may  be  much  wider.  We  are  not  impressed  by  this
argument. It must be borne in mind that noscitur a sociis is merely  a  rule
of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where it is  clear  that  the
wider words have been deliberately used in order to make the  scope  of  the
defined word correspondingly wider. It is only where the  intention  of  the
Legislature in associating wider words with words of  narrower  significance
is doubtful, or otherwise not clear that the present  rule  of  construction
can be usefully applied. It can also be applied where  the  meaning  of  the
words of wider import is doubtful; but, where the object of the  Legislature
in  using  wider  words  is  clear  and  free  of  ambiguity,  the  rule  of
construction in question cannot be pressed into service."

This principle has  been  applied  in  a  number  of  contexts  in  judicial
decisions where the Court is clear in its mind that the  larger  meaning  of
the word in question could not have been intended in the  context  in  which
it has been used. The cases are too numerous to  need  discussion  here.  It
should be sufficient to refer to one of them  by  way  of  illustration.  In
Rainbow Steels  Ltd.  v.  C.S.T.,  (1981)  2  SCC  141  this  Court  had  to
understand the meaning of the word 'old' in the context of  an  entry  in  a
taxing tariff which read thus:

            "Old, discarded, unserviceable or absolute machinery, stores  or
vehicles including waste products ..... "

Though the tariff item started with the use of  the  wide  word  'old',  the
Court came to the conclusion that "in order to fall  within  the  expression
'old machinery' occurring in the entry, the machinery must be old  machinery
in the sense that it has become  non-functional  or  non-usable".  In  other
words, not the mere age of the machinery, which would  be  relevant  in  the
wider sense, but the condition of the machinery analogous to that  indicated
by the words following it, was considered relevant for the purposes  of  the
statute.



11.  The maxim of noscitur a sociis has been described by Diplock,  C.J.  as
a "treacherous one unless one knows the societas to which the socii  belong"
(vide: Letang v. Coopex, 1965-1 Q.B. 232).  The  learned  Solicitor  General
also warns that one should not be carried away by labels  and  Latin  maxims
when the word to be  interpreted  is  clear  and  has  a  wide  meaning.  We
entirely agree that these maxims and precedents are not to  be  mechanically
applied; they are of assistance only in so far as they furnish  guidance  by
compendiously summing up principles based  on  rules  of  common  sense  and
logic. As explained in Collector of Central  Excise  v.  Parle  Exports  (P)
Ltd., 1989 (38) E.L.T. 741 (S.C.) = (1989-1 S.C.C. 345 at  p.357)  and  Tata
Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1989 (43) E.L.T. 183 (S.C.) = (1989-4 SCC  541
at p. 545-6) in interpreting the scope of any notification,  the  Court  has
first to keep in mind the object and purpose of the notification. All  parts
of it should be read harmoniously in aid of, and not in derogation, of  that
purpose. In this case, the aim and object of the notification is to grant  a
concession  to  small  scale  factories   which   manufacture   paper   with
unconventional raw materials. The question  naturally  arises:  Could  there
have been any particular object intended to be achieved by  introducing  the
exceptions set out in the proviso? Instead  of  proceeding  on  the  premise
that it is not necessary to look for any reason in a taxing statute,  it  is
necessary to have a closer look at  the  wording  of  the  proviso.  If  the
proviso had referred only to 'coated paper', no special  object  or  purpose
would  have  been  discernible  and  perhaps  there  would  have   been   no
justification to look beyond it and enter into a speculation as to  why  the
notification  should  have  thought  of  exempting   only   'coated   paper'
manufactured by these factories from the purview of the exemption.  But  the
notification excepts not one but a group of items. If  the  items  mentioned
in the group were totally dissimilar and  it  were  impossible  to  see  any
common thread running through them again, it may be permissible to give  the
exceptions their widest latitude. But  when  four  of  them-undoubtedly,  at
least three of them-can be brought under an intelligible classification  and
it is also conceivable that the Government  might  well  have  thought  that
these small scale factories  should  not  be  eligible  for  the  concession
contemplated by the notification where they manufacture  paper  catering  to
industrial purposes, there is a purpose in  the  limitation  prescribed  and
there is no reason why the rationally  logical  restriction  should  not  be
placed on the proviso based on this classification. In our  view,  the  only
reasonable way of interpreting the proviso is  by  understanding  the  words
'coated paper' in a narrower sense consistent  with  the  other  expressions
used therein.”




The aforesaid discussion would be sufficient to  hold  that  pulp  from  the
waste of jute bags or gunny bags would not be covered  by  the  term  'rags'
appearing in  Notification  dated  01-03-1994  as  it  could  never  be  the
intention to exclude non-conventional  material  from  the  benefit  of  the
aforesaid Notification when that was precisely the purpose  for  which  this
Notification was issued to encourage use of  non-conventional  material  for
the purposes of manufacturing paper or paper products.  Still, we would  now
like to take note  of  the  dictionary  meaning  that  is  assigned  to  the
aforesaid terms, that too from the 'Dictionary of Paper' by  American  Paper
and  Pulp  Association,  which  obviously   is   the   most   relevant   and
authenticated dictionary for the purpose of the present case as what  is  in
vogue and understood in paper industry is contained in such a dictionary.

The Dictionary of Paper by  American  Paper  and  Pulp  Association  clearly
makes a distinction between rag pulp and  jute.   Relevant  portion  of  the
book (contained at pages 22 and 26) is reproduced below:
“Cotton fibre or rag pulps are used principally in the manufacture  of  fine
and technical papers as listed below, and  in  the  manufacture  of  roofing
papers..”

Jute Pulp is used in the manufacture of wrapping paper and  tag  stock.   It
is also used to some extent in buff drawing  paper.   The  major  supply  of
jute comes from old sacking, burlap and string...”

Jute … Old gunny and sacking are used as raw materials in papermaking”

The book 'Pulp and Paper Chemistry and  Chemical  Technology'  by  James  P.
Casey again distinguishes between rags and jute in the following manner:
“Use of Rags for Papermaking

High-grade cotton and, to some extent, linen rags are used to make the  best
grades of  bond,  writing  and  technical  papers,  where  permanence,  high
strength, and distinctive quality are of interest.

Pulping of Jute

Whole jute is rarely used for  pulp  and  papermaking.   Salvaged  products,
such as old jute sacks and burlap, are the materials available to the  paper
mills.  Waste jute is cut into small  pieces  and  dusted  before  cooking..
Jute pulps are used for the manufacture of  high-strength  bags,  wrappings,
drawing papers, and tags.”

Dictionary of Paper by TAPPI defines 'rag pulps' as under:
“Papermaking fibers made from new or old cotton textile cuttings.  The  term
may also apply to cotton linters, i.e., the short  fibers  which  adhere  to
the cotton seed after the ginning process.  Rag pulps  are  used  in  papers
where permanence and durability are needed, e.g.,  ledger,  blueprint,  map,
currency papers etc.”

Indian Standard Glossary of Terms used in Paper  Trade  and  Industry  –  IS
4661 : 1999 defines 'jute' and 'rag pulp' as under:
“Jute : (a) An Indian bast fibre,  white  jute  (Corchorus  Capsularis)  and
tossa jute (C. Olitorius) which  is  used  for  the  manufacture  of  coarse
sacking and bags (gunny sack).  Old  gunny  and  sacking  are  used  as  raw
materials in papermaking...

Rag Pulps: Papermaking fibres of cotton made from materials like new or  old
cotton textile cuttings or cotton linters,  mill  run,  fly  cotton,  cotton
waste etc.  Rag pulps are used in papers  where  permanence  and  durability
are needed, for example, ledger, blueprint, map, currency papers etc."

Thus, almost all the books on the subject uniformly  define  'rag'  or  'rag
pulp' as one which is made from cotton waste  or  cotton  textile  material.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue  could  not
point out to a single dictionary or could  take  us  through  any  technical
literature which even remotely suggests that jute gunny bags come under  the
category of 'rags' in the context of paper technology.

The Tribunal has simply brushed aside the aforesaid  material  with  a  mere
observation that it is not  relevant  and  this  approach  of  the  Tribunal
cannot be justified.

The upshot of  the  aforesaid  discussion  is  to  hold  that  the  impugned
decision of the Tribunal does not stand judicial scrutiny  and  warrants  to
be set aside.  We, thus, allow this appeal, quash the order of the  Tribunal
and restore the order that was passed by the Commissioner.
                 No costs.

                             .............................................J.
                                                                (A.K. SIKRI)


                             .............................................J.
                                                     (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 21, 2015.
-----------------------
[1]   (1990) 3 SCC 447
[2]   (1996) 11 SCC 332
[3]   (2000) 8 SCC 642
[4]   1990 (47) ELT 491 (SC)

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

“37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc.- (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served,- by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized agent, if any; if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order, summons or notice, as the case may be, is intended; if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clauses (a) and (b), by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.”we are of the clear conclusion that a miscarriage of justice has taken place, in that the Authorities/Courts below have failed to notice the specific language of Section 37C(a) of the Act which requires that an Order must be tendered on the concerned person or his authorized agent, in other words, on no other person, to ensure efficaciousness. We must immediately recall the decision in Taylor vs. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch. D 426, rendered venerable by virtue of its jural acceptance and applicable for over a century. It was approved by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (1935-36) 63 IA 372 and was subsequently applied in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322, State of UP v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358, Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422 and more recently in Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat (2014) 8 SCC 425. As observed by this Court in Babu Verghese, “it is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.” The Inspector who ostensibly served the copy of the Order should have known the requirements of the statute and therefore should have insisted on an acknowledgement either by the Appellant or by its authorized agent. The Inspector had a statutory function to fulfil, not a mere perfunctory one. The Appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned Orders are set aside. In the facts obtaining before us, the computation of the period would commence at least from the date on which the Appellant asserts knowledge of its existence, i.e. on 26.7.2012. So computed, the Appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 22.8.2012 would be within the prescribed period of 60 days and should, therefore, have been entertained on merits. It is ordered accordingly. The Appellant shall appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the forenoon of 3.8.2015. The Appeal shall then be taken up and heard on its merits. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5631-5632 OF 2015

            [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 22905-22906 of 2014]



SARAL WIRE CRAFT PVT. LTD.              …    Appellant

                                   Versus

COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE

& SERVICE TAX, & ORS.                        …       Respondent







                                  O R D E R




      Delay condoned.
      Leave granted.
      The Appellant is aggrieved by  the  fact  that  the  right  of  Appeal
bestowed on the assessee by the Central Excise  Act,  1944  (in  short  ‘the
Act’) has virtually been rendered nugatory since, successively,  its  Appeal
has been declined consideration on merits,  having  instead  held  as  time-
barred.
      Succinctly stated, the Appellant had sought to  take  advantage  of  a
Notification granting exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty as  well
as  Additional  Duty  of  Excise  for  a  period   of   ten   years.    This
moratorium/exemption has been granted by the  Central  Government  with  the
objective of giving a fillip to the industrialization of the  newly  created
State of Uttarakhand.  The dispute is whether the  Appellant’s  factory/unit
is situated on land which is covered by the aforesaid Notification,  but  we
are  not  immediately  concerned  with  this  contentious  issue  in  theses
Appeals.  It appears that on 28.7.2011, the Assistant Commissioner,  Customs
and Central Excise Division, Haldwani  had  concluded  the  proceedings  and
hearings in respect of the show cause notice dated 25.3.2011 issued  to  the
Appellant.  The Appellant’s contention is that  after  a  passage  of  eight
months an order came to be passed by the said Officer on  30.3.2012  holding
that the Appellant was not eligible for the  exemptions  postulated  in  the
said Notification; a duty of Rs.3,45,629/- along  with  penalty  of  a  like
amount was imposed under Section 11A of  the  Act.   We  reiterate  that  in
these Appeals we are not concerned with the legality of that Order.
The Appellant filed an Appeal against the said  Adjudication  Order  in  the
Office of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and  Central  Excise  (Meerut-
II)  asserting  that  consequent  upon  the  initiation  of   the   recovery
proceedings by the Department, the Appellant learned for the first time,  on
26.7.2012, of the passing of the aforesaid Order dated 30.3.2012.  The  case
put forward is that the Adjudication Order dated 30.3.2012 appears  to  have
been served on an employee of the Appellant, named Sanjay, who according  to
the Appellant was a ‘Kitchen boy’ employed on daily wages, and was  avowedly
not authorized to deal with communications to and  from  the  Appellant;  he
had unauthorisedly affixed the stamp/seal  of  the  Appellant  on  the  some
documents purporting to establish the service of the Adjudication Order,  on
3.4.2012.  Accepting the service to  have  been  properly  effected  on  the
Appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed  the  Appeal  filed  by  the
Appellant by an Order dated 28.9.2012  on  the  ground  that  it  was  time-
barred.  The period was held to have started to run from 3.4.2012 and  since
the Appeal had been filed on 22.8.2012 it was held to be  not  maintainable,
being beyond the prescribed period of sixty days. The merits of  the  Appeal
were not gone into at all.
      This decision was challenged before the  Customs  Excise  and  Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which accepted the  Department’s  version
that the Adjudication Order had been duly served/delivered on the  Appellant
on 3.4.2012; since the Appeal came to be filed on 22.8.2012,  the  dismissal
on the ground of limitation was held to be in consonance with the Act.
      Thereafter, the Appellant approached the High Court of Uttarakhand  at
Nainital, which  opined  that  an  Appeal  is  a  creature  of  statute  and
therefore its  preferment  beyond  the  period  permitted  by  the  relevant
statute, reduced it to a futile  exercise.    Even  this  endeavour  of  the
Appellant was of no avail to it as the High Court was of  the  opinion  that
there was no power to condone the delay beyond the  statutory  period.    We
may underscore the important facet of the  Appeal,  viz.,  that  the  Appeal
filed by the Appellant has not  been  considered  on  merits  at  all.   The
Appellate  Authorities  as  well  as  the  High  Court  failed  to  keep  in
perspective the essential issue - namely - to ascertain the date from  which
limitation was to be calculated.
      Learned  counsel  for  the  Appellant  has  consistently  relied  upon
Section 37C of the Act, which is reproduced for facility of reference:
“37C. Service of decisions, orders,  summons,  etc.-  (1)  Any  decision  or
order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act  or  the  rules
made thereunder, shall be served,-
by tendering the decision, order,  summons  or  notice,  or  sending  it  by
registered post with acknowledgment due,  to  the  person  for  whom  it  is
intended or his authorized agent, if any;
if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be  served  in  the  manner
provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous  part
of the factory or warehouse or other place of business  or  usual  place  of
residence of the person for whom such decision, order,  summons  or  notice,
as the case may be, is intended;
if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be  served  in  the  manner
provided in clauses (a) and (b), by affixing a copy thereof  on  the  notice
board of the officer or authority who  or  which  passed  such  decision  or
order or issued such summons or notice.”

Sub-section (a) of Section 37C (supra)  states  that  any  decision,  order,
summons  or  notice  may  either   be   sent   by   registered   post   with
acknowledgement due to the person for whom it is intended or his  authorized
agent.  If this mode of service is unsuccessful then service can  be  effect
by  affixation.    It  is  not  the  case  of   the   Department   that   it
simultaneously also dispatched the Order  to  the  Appellant  by  registered
post with acknowledgment due.
      It is an anathema in law to decide a matter without due notice to  the
concerned  party.    Every  effort  must  be  taken  to   meaningfully   and
realistically serve the affected party so as not merely to  ensure  that  he
has knowledge thereof but also to enable him  to  initiate  any  permissible
action.   The  Appellant  justifiably  submits  that  it   was   statutorily
impermissible for the Respondents to  serve  the  Adjudication  Order  on  a
“kitchen boy”, who is not even a middle level officer and certainly  not  an
authorized agent of the Appellant.   The version of the  Appellant  that  it
learnt of the passing of the Adjudication Order dated 30.3.2012  only  when,
in the course of the recovery proceedings, the  Department’s  officials  had
visited its unit, is certainly believable.   The  fact  that,  firstly,  the
Order had not been passed in the presence of the Appellant, so as to  render
its subsequent service a formality, and secondly, that the Order came to  be
passed after an inordinate period of  eight  months  should  not  have  been
ignored.  This fact should not have been lost sight of  by  the  Authorities
below as it has inevitably led to a miscarriage of justice.   The  Inspector
of the Department should have meticulously followed and obeyed  the  mandate
of the statute and tendered the Adjudication Order either on  the  party  on
whom it was intended or on its authorized agent and on one else.  It is  not
the Respondents’ case that Shri  Sanjay  was  the  authorized  agent.   Even
before us, despite several opportunities given, the Respondents have  failed
to file their response to the Special Leave Petitions so  as  to  controvert
the asseveration  of the Appellant that Shri Sanjay  on  whom  the  decision
was tendered was a mere daily wager ‘kitchen boy’  and  that  the  Appellant
had no knowledge of the passing of the  Adjudication  Order.   We  are  also
informed that the  recoveries  envisaged  in  the  Adjudication  Order  have
already been effected.
      It is in these circumstances that we are of the clear conclusion  that
a miscarriage of justice has taken place,  in  that  the  Authorities/Courts
below have failed to notice the specific language of Section 37C(a)  of  the
Act which requires that an Order must be tendered on  the  concerned  person
or his authorized agent, in other words,  on  no  other  person,  to  ensure
efficaciousness.    We must immediately recall the decision  in  Taylor  vs.
Taylor (1875) 1 Ch. D  426,  rendered  venerable  by  virtue  of  its  jural
acceptance and applicable for over a century.  It was approved by the  Privy
Council in Nazir  Ahmad  v.  King  Emperor  (1935-36)  63  IA  372  and  was
subsequently applied in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of  Vindhya  Pradesh
AIR 1954 SC 322, State of UP  v.  Singhara  Singh  AIR  1964  SC  358,  Babu
Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC  422  and  more  recently  in
Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat (2014) 8  SCC  425.   As  observed  by
this Court in Babu Verghese, “it is the basic principle of law long  settled
that if the manner of  doing  a  particular  act  is  prescribed  under  any
statute, the act must  be  done  in  that  manner  or  not  at  all.”    The
Inspector who ostensibly served the copy of the Order should have known  the
requirements of the  statute  and  therefore  should  have  insisted  on  an
acknowledgement either by the Appellant or by  its  authorized  agent.   The
Inspector had a statutory function to fulfil, not a  mere  perfunctory  one.
The Appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned Orders are  set  aside.
In the facts obtaining before  us,  the  computation  of  the  period  would
commence at least from the date on which the Appellant asserts knowledge  of
its existence, i.e. on 26.7.2012.    So computed, the  Appeal  filed  before
the Commissioner (Appeals) on  22.8.2012  would  be  within  the  prescribed
period of 60 days and should, therefore, have been  entertained  on  merits.
It  is  ordered  accordingly.   The  Appellant  shall  appear   before   the
Commissioner (Appeals) on the forenoon of 3.8.2015.  The Appeal  shall  then
be taken up and heard on its merits.  There shall be no order as  to  costs.


……………………………..J.
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)



                                                            ………………………………..J.
                                                                   (SHIVA
                                KIRTI  SINGH)
New Delhi
20th July,  2015.