COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI.versusBALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.

      COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI.                                A
                                    v.
                 BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD ..

                        SEPTEMBER 29, 1989

         [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, N.D. OJHA AND                                 B
                    J.S. VERMA, JJ.]

      Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944/ Central Excise Rules, 1944: Sec-
tions 2(f), J and item 68 in First Schedule-Notification No. ·105/82-CE
dated 28.2.1982/Rule 8-Manufacture of paper/paper-boards-Use of
Sodium Sulphate in the process-Whether used as raw material-Enti-
tlement to proforma credits of duty paid.
                                                                             c
      Words & Phrases: "Raw Material"-Meaning of.

      · Respondent has been using Sodium Sulphate in the process of
manufacture of paper and paper-boards, and by virtue of Notification         D
No. 105/82-CE dated 28.2.1982 claimed proforma-credits. The
Superintendent of Central Excise declined tbe claim on the ground that
Sodium Sulphate was burnt up in the process of manufacture and was
not retained in the paper, and therefore, could not be considered as raw
material in the manufacture of paper. He also issued a show cause
notice for the recovery of proforma-credits already availed of by the        E
respondent. On appeal, however, the Assistant Collector set aside the
show cause notice holding that Sodium Sulphate was an essential raw
material in the manufacture of paper and as such attracted the benefit
of the notification. But, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set
aside the order of the Assistant Collector and remitted it back to him for
readjudication. Respondent challenged this order before the Customs,         F
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Adopting the reasoning
in its earlier decision in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. Collector
of Central Excise, (1985] 22 ELT 163, the Tribunal allowed the appeal
and restored the order of the Assistant Collector.
      This appeal under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt
                                                                             G
Act, 1944 is against the Tribunal's order.

      On behalf of the Appellant, it was contended that the word "raw
material" connotes something more than what is 'used' in the
manufacture and requires that goods to become "raw material" must
either in their original or altered form, endure as a composite element      H
of the end product.
                                   323
    324         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1989] Supp. l S.C.R.

A          The Respondent contended that Sodium Sulphate was an essential
    chemical ingredient in the chemistry of paper technology and the fact
    that the ingredient was actually burnt up or sublimated in the process;
    and did not retain its identity in the end product, will not detract from
    its being a raw material.

B         Dismissing the appeal,

          HELD: I. I. The Tribunal was right in its conclusion that So-
    dium Sulphate was used in the manufacture of paper as "Raw-
    Material" .within the meaning of the Notification No. 105/82/CE dated
    28.2.1982. [333A]
c         1.2. The expression "Raw-Material" is not a defined term. The
    meaning to he given to it is the ordinary and well-accepted connotation
    in the common parlance of those who deal with the matter. The ingre-
    dients used in the chemical technology of manufacture of any end-
    product might comprise, amongst others, of those which may retain
D   their dominant individual identity and character throughout the pro-
    cess and also in the end-product; those which, as a result of interaction
    with other chemicals or ingredients, might themselves undergo chemi-
    cal or qualitative changes and in such altered form find themselves in
    the end-product; those which, like catalytic agents, while influencing          (
    and accelerating the chemical reaction, however, may themselves
E   remain uninfluenced and unaltered and remain independent of and
    outside the end-products and those, as here, which might be burnt-up
    or consumed in the chemical reactions. It could be that the ingredient
    should be so essential for the chemical processes culminating in the
    emergence of the desired end-product, that having regard to its impor-
    tance in the indispensability for the process, it could he said that its very
F   consumption on burning-up is its quality and value as raw-material. In
    such a case, the relevant test is not its absence in the end-product, but
    the dependance of the end-product for its essential presence at the
    delivery end of the process. The ingredient goes into the making of the
    end-product in the sense that without its absence, the presence of the
    end-product, as such, is rendered impossible. This quality should
G   coalesce with the requirement that its utilisation is in the manufacturing
    process as distinct from the manufacturing apparatus. [331F-H; 332A-CJ

         Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Board of Revenue v. Thomas
    Stephen & Co. Ltd., JT 19881 SC 631, distinguished.

H         Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise,
                   C.C.E. v. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES                      325

[ 1985] 22 ELT 163; Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend Paper In·
                                                                              A
dustries Ltd., [1989] 43 ELT 201 SC; Collector of Central Excise,
Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., Chandrapur, [1983] ELT 1263
and Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar v. Titaghur Paper
Mills, [1985] 21EL-T901, referred to.

       2. lt cannot be gainsaid that Sodium Sulphate used was anterior        B
to and at one stage removed from the actual manufacture of paper. Section
2(1) -of the Act defines 'manufacture' and it takes within it all ancillary
and incidental purposes. Where any particular process, is so integrally
connected with the ultimate production of goods that, but for that pro-
cess, manufacture or processing of goods would be commercially inex-
pedient, articles required in that process, would fall within the expres-
sion 'in the manufacture of goods'. [332F-G, 3310)                            c
      Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd.,
[1989] 4j ELT 201 SC, followed.

       3. It is not always possible to draw a line of strict demarcation      D
between what can be said to be 'goods' merely used in the manufacture
and what constitute goods used as "Raw-Material" for that purpose. ln
the infinite variety of ways in which these problems present themselves
it is neither necessary nor wise to enunciate principles of any general
validity intended to cover all cases. The matter must rest upon the facts
of each case Though in many cases it might be difficult to draw a line of     JO
demarcation, it is easy to discern on which side of the boarder-line a
particular case falls. l333B-CJ

     Pragmatism and Theory in English Law, page 75, Hamlyn
Lectures of 1987; Attorney General v. Brighton & Hove Co-operative
Association, [1900] l Ch. 276; Mayor of South Port v. Morris, [1893] I        F
Q.B. 359, relied on.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2882
of 1989.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1988 of the Customs,              G,
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal
No. E/1351of1988-C.

    C. Shirappa Adv. General for State of Karnataka, A.K.
Ganguli, K. Swami and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advs. with them for the
Appellant.                                                                    H
    326         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A         Soli J. Sorabji, O.P. Malhotra, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Auesha
    Zaidi and Mrs. Nisha Bagchi for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       VENKATACHALIAH, J. This appeal, under Section 35-L(b) of
B the Central Excise and Salt Act,_ 1944, arises out of and is directed
  against the Order No. E/1351/88-C dated 2.12.1988, by the Customs,
  Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, (Tribunal) New Delhi,
  allowing the appeal preferred by the Respondent and holding that
  Respondent was entitled to certain proforma credits of the duty paid
  on "Sodium Sulphate" used in the manufacture of paper and paper-
C boards in which respondent is engaged.

        The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the
  Respondent-Manufacturer,-The Ballarpur Industries Ltd.,-was
  entitled to the benefit of Central Government's Notification No. 105/
  82-CE dated 28.2.1982 a question which in tum, depends on whether
D Sodium Sulphate could be said to have been used as "Raw-Material"
  in the manufacture of 'paper' and 'paper-board'. In the proceedings
  before the authorities, the dispute initially concerned six other inputs.
  But the controversy before us was limited, as it should rightly be, only
  to Sodium Sulphate inasmuch as even in the appeal before the Col-
  lector (Appeals), the department's grievance, apparently, was con-
E fined to the Proforma-Credits of duty earlier paid on Sodium Sulphate
  [See Col. 6 of the Assistant Collector's Memorandum Appeal dated
  15. 7.1987 before_the Collector (Appea_ls)J.

       2. Respondent is a manufacturer of paper and paper-boards in
  the processes relating to which "Sodium Sulphate" is used "in the
F chemical recovery cycle of Sodium Sulphate which forms an essential
  constituent of Sulphate cookin& liquor used in the digestion operation.''.
  The notification dated 28.2.1982 under which the credit is claimed
  reads:

                "In exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule ( 1) of rule 8
0               of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession "f
                the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry
                of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 178/77-Central
                Excise, Dated 18 June, 1977, the Central Government
                hereby exempts all excisable goods (hereinafter referred as
                "the said goods") on which the duty of excise is leviable
H               and in the manufacture of which any goods falling w1d~r
        C.C.E. v. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES IYENKATACHALJAH, J.J            327

             Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and
                                                                              A
             Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred as "the
             inputs") have been used as raw material or component parts
             (hereinafter referred to as "the inputs") from so much of
             the duty of excise leviable thereon as is equivalent to the
             duty of excise already paid on the ''lnputs".
                                                     (Emphasis Supplied)      B

       The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-2, Yamunanagar,
 declined the Proforma-Credit to the duty paid on "Sodium Sulphate"
 on the ground that Sodium Sulphate "was burnt-up in the process of
 manufacture and was not retained in the paper" and that, therefore, it
 could not be considered "Raw-Material" in the manufacture of paper.
 Accordingly, he caused a notice dated 18.1.1983 to be issued requiring       c
 respondent to show cause why the amounts of Proforma-Credit availed
 of by the respondent for the period between 28.2.1982 and 31.10.1982
 should not be recovered. The reason why "Sodium Sulphate" could
 not be held to be a "raw material" in the manufacture of paper was set
 out in the notice thus:                                                      D

             " ..... The Proforma Credit claimed and granted in re-
             spect of the above mentioned items from 28.2.82 to
             31.10.82 is not admissible because these Chemicals are bum
             out and do .not remain in.the finished product. The amount
             of proforma credit availed is, therefore, liable to be           E
             recovered ..... "
                                                     (Emphasis supplied)

        However, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ambala, by
  his order dated 27.6.1986 took a different view and held that Sodium
  Sulphate, even as the other inputs referred to in the said notice" was an   F
  essential raw material in the manufacture of paper and attracted ·the
  benefit of the notification. The show cause notice dated 18.1.1983 was,
· accordingly, set aside.

         But, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set-aside the
  order of the Assistant Collector and remitted the matter to Assistant       G
  Collector for a readjudication. The respondent-manufacturer chal-
  lenged this order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the con-
- .tention of the Respondent-Manufacturer, set-aside the order of the
  Collector (Appeals) and restored the order of the Assistant Collector.
  The Tribunal adopted the reasoning in its earlier decision in Seshasa-
   yee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1985] 22        H
    328         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                rt989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A   ELT 163 in which the Tribunal had held:

                " ..... the term "raw material" has to be interpreted in the
                circumstances of each case in the absence of any acceptable
                or useful definition of the term either in theuictionary or in
B               the technical literature ..... "

                " ..... sodium sulphide lye, Sodium Sulphate, Daicol
                (Gaur Gums) and Fluo solid lime used for the bleaching of
                pulp schould be considered as raw materials in the
                manufacture of paper; they serve a distinct and definitive
                purpose in the normal and recognised process of manufac-
c               ture of paper and are essential for the process of manufac-
                ture ..... "

          In this appeal, the Collector challenges the correctness of the
    decision of the Tribunal.
D
          3. We have heard Sri A.K. Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel for
    the Appellant and Sri Soli Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel for the
    Respondent-Manufacturer. The thrust of Sri Ganguly's arguments is
    that the amplitude of the expression "Raw-material" in the Notifica-
    tion has to be ascertained with reference to and in the context of the
    purpose in substituting that expression in place of the words obtaining
F
    in the earlier Notification No. 79/CE dated 4.6.1979, in which credit
    was given to duty paid on "goods" which have been "used" in the
    manufacture of excisable goods. Sri Ganguly says that the Tribunal
    has, virtually and in effect, ignored the essential and important distinc-
    tion between goods being "useiJ" in the manufacture on the one hand
p   and "goods" used as "Raw-Material" on the other, ignoring the con-
    scious change intended by the substitution of the expression "Raw-
    Material" in the later notification dated 28.2.1982 which was clearly
    intended to cut-down the benefit. Sri Ganguly referred to the follow-
    ing observations of this Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend
    Paper Industries Ltd., [1989] 43 ELT201 SC:
G               In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v.
                Sales Tax Officer, [ 1965] 16 STC 563 SC, this Court while
                construing the expression 'in the manufacture or processing
                of goods for sale' in the context of Sales Tax Law, though
                the concept is different under the Excise Law, has held that
                manufacture of goods should normally encompass the entire
H
      C.C.E. v. BALLARPUR INDUSTR!ES. IVENKATACHALIAH, J.]           329

           prQcess carried on by the dealer· of converting raw materials    A
           into finished goods ..... "
                                                                (P. 204)
                                                   (Emphasis Supplied)

and contended that the import of the word "Raw-Material", judicially
accepted, connotes something more than what is 'used' in the                B
manufacture and requires that goods to become "Raw-Material"
must, either in their original or altered form, endure as a composite
element of the end-product. Sri. Ganguly submitted that the technical
literature and evidence in the case as to the part played by Sodium
Sulphate in the chemical technolody of paper making suggested two
things: First, that Sodium Sulphate was utilised in the preparation of
an anterior, intermediate product at the stage of 'digestion' of the pulp   c
and did not, therefore, strictly belong to the process of manufacture of
paper itself; and, Secondly, that Sodium Sulphate did not go directly
into and find a place in the finished product and did not, therefore,
qualify for being "Raw-Material" in the manufacture of paper.
Learned Counsel said that no satisfactory answer to the question            D
raised in the appeal could be afforded unless a clear line of demarca-
tion between the material merely used in the manufacture of paper on
the one hand and material used as "Raw-Material" on the othe.r is
drawn. Sri Ganguly sought to substantiate this distiction in the present
case with reference to certain observations of this Court in Deputy
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Board of Revenue v. Thomas Stephen &             E
Co., Ltd., JT 1988 (1) SC 631. One of the questions there was whether
cashew-shells used in the kiln by the dealer who was ·a manufacturer of
tiles, terra-cotta-ware and ceramic-items wern exigible to purchase-fax
under Section 5A (l)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963,-on
the ground that the dealer had "consumed such goods in the
manufacture of other goods ..... " The Tribunal had held that               F
cashew-shells had been used only as fuel in the kiln for the
manufacture of tiles and that, therefore, the condition of 5A (l)(a) of
the Act was not satisfied, there having been no consumption of
cashew-shells in the manufacture of the ceramic goods.

      This Court held:                                                      G

                 "The cashew shells in the instant case, had been used
           as fuel in the kiln. The cashew shells did not get trans-
           formed into the end product. These have not been used as
           raw-materials in the manufacture of the goods. These have
           been used only as an aid in the manufacture of the goods b)'     H
     330       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

               the assessee. Consumption must be in the manufacture as
A
               raw-material or of other components which go into the mak-
               ing of the end product to come within the mischief of the
               section. Cashew shells do not tend to the niaking of the end
               product. Goods used for ancillary purposes like fuel in the
               process of the manufacture, do not fall within section
B              5A(l)(a) of the Act. Cashew shells, therefore, do not at-
               tract levy of tax under the said section ..... "
                                                                    (p. 634)
                                                        (Emphasis Supplied)

       Sri Ganguly says that "Sodi~m Sulphate" in the present case
C must, like the cashew-shells, be held to have been used as an aid in
  the manufacture of paper and for ancillary purposes like fuel and not
  as "Raw-Material in the manufacture of paper.

       · 4. Sri Sorabjee, for the Respondent, sought to maintain that
  Sodium Sulphate was an essential chemical ingredient in the chemistry
D of paper technology and that the fact that the ingredient was actually
  burnt-up or sublimated in the process and did not retain its identity in
  the end-product, will not, necessarily, detract from its being a "Raw-
  Material". The relevant test is how essential is the ingredient in the
  manufacture. Learned counsel said that in the complexity of the chain
  of chemical reactions in the manufacturing_process, undue emphasis
E on the search for the identity of any individual chemical ingredienj 'in
  the final product would be artificial and unrealistic. Sri Sorabjee sub-
  mitted that authoritative scientific treatises on the paper technology
  recognise that "Sodium Sulphate" is an essential raw material. Sri
  Sorabjee referred to the publication of the Food and Agriculture
  Organisation of the United Nations under the caption "Guide for
f Planning Pulp and Paper Enterprises" in which the following state-
  ment occurs:

                    "Fot any pulp and paper enterprise a variety of
               nonfibrous raw materials are required: water, fuel, power
               and paper-making chemicals and, for pulp mills, pulping
G              and bleaching chemicals ..... "
                                                                  (p.270)

                     "The sulphate (kraft) pulping process, now the most
               common pulping process for both wood and nonwood fib-
               rous raw materials, requires the purchase of salteake
H,             (sodium sulphate) and limes tome (calcium carbonate). De-
      C.C.E. v. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES !VENKATACHALIAH, J.J              331

            pending on the efficiency of the recovery system, about 40
                                                                              A
            to 80 kilogrammes of salteake and 25 kilogrammes of
            limestone are needed per ton of pulp. These chemicals are
            converted in the chemical recovery and causticizing sys-
            tems to give sodium hydroxide and sodium sulphide, which
            are the active chemicals in the pulping liquor."
                                                               (p. 275)       B

      Sri Sorabjee subn;titted that the Tribunal had consistently taken
this view in several cases and that the department not having carried
those matters up in appeal must be held to have accepted the correct-
ness of that view. As instances in point, Learned Counsel referred to
two decisions, in Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur
Industries Ltd., Chandrapur, [1983] ELT 1263 and in Collector of Central
                                                                              c
Excise, Bhubaneswarv. Titaghur Paper Mills, [1985] 21ELT901.

      Adverting to appellant's contention that use of Sodium Sulphate
was at a stage of preparation of the Pulp which is a stage anterior to the
actual manufacture of paper, Sri Sorabjee submitted that, apart from          D
the fallacy inherent in the attempt to dissect an otherwise integrated
process of manufacture, the definition of 'manufacture' in Section 2(f)
of the 'Act' which takes with in it all ancillary and incidental processes,
should secure to render the contention insubstantial.

      5. The question, in the ultimate analysis, is whether the input of      E
Sodium Sulphate in the manufacture of paper would cease to be a
"Raw-Material" by reason alone of the fact that in the course of the
chemical reactions this ingredient is consumed and burnt-up. The
expression "Raw-Material" is not a defined term. The meaning to be
given to it is the ordinary and well-accepted connotation in the com-
moll parlance of those who deal with the matter.                              F

      The ingredients used in the chemical technology of manufacture
of any end-product might comprise, amongst others, of those which
may retain their dominant individual identity and character through-
out the process and also in the end-product; those which as a result of
interaction with other chemicals or ingredients, might themselves . G
undergo chemical or qualitiative changes and in such altered form find '
themselves in the end-product; those which, like catalytic agents,
while influencing and accelerating the chemical reactions, however,
may themselves remain uninfluenced and unaltered and remain inde-
pendent of and outside the end-products and those, as here, which
might be burnt-up or consumed in the chemical reactions. The ques: H.
    332         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

    tion in the present case is whether the ingredients of the last men-
A
    tioned class qualify themselves as and are eligible to be called "Raw-
    Material" for the end-product. One of the valid tests, in our opinion,
    could be that the ingredient should be so essential for the chemical
    processes culminating in the emergence of the desired end-product,
    that having regard to its importance in and indispensability for the
B   process, it could be said that its very consumption on burning-up is its
    quality and value as raw-material. In such a case, the relevant test is
    not its absence in the, end product, but the dependance of the end-
    product for its essential presence at the delivery and of the process.
    The ingredient goes into the making of the end-product in the sense
    that without its absence the presence of the end-product, as such, is
    rendered impossible. This quality should coalesce with the require-
c   ment that its utilisation is in the manufacturing process as distinct from
    the manufacturing apparatus.

          6. The decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales '
    Tax, Board of Revenue v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd., relied upon by
D   Sri Ganguly, does not really advance the appellant's case. The obser-
    vations therein to the effect that "consumption must be in the man-
    ufacture of raw material or of other component which go into the
    making of end-product" were made to emphasise the distinction bet-
    ween the "fuel" used for the kiln to impart the heat-treatment to
    ceramics and what actually went into the manufacutre of such cera-
E   mics. The observations, correctly apprehended, do not lend them-
    selves to the understanding that for something to qualify itself as
    "Raw-Material" it must necessarily and in all cases go into, and be
    found, in the end-product.

          7. We also find no substance in the contention of Sri Ganguly
F   that the process in whch the Sodium Sulphate was used, was anterior
    to and at one stage removed from the actual manufacture of paper. Sri
    Sorabjee's answer to this contention is, in our view, appropriate. That
    apart the following observations in Collector of Central Excise v.
    Eastend Paper Industries Ltd., cited by Sri Ganguly himself is a comp-
    lete answer:
G
                "        Where any particular process, this Court further
                emphasised, is so integrally connected with the ultimate
                production of goods that, but for that process, manufacture
                or processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient,
                articles required in that process, would fall within the
H               expression 'in the manufacture of goods' ..... "
      C.C.E. v. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES [VENKATACHALIAH, J.)               333

     8. On a consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to the
view that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that Sodium Sulphate
                                                                               A
was used in the manufacture of paper as "Raw-Material' within the
meaning of the Notification No. 105/82-CE dated 28.2.1982.

      9. Now a word about Sri Ganguly's insistence on drawing a line
of strict demarcation between what can be said to be 'goods' merely            B
"used" in the manufacture and what constitute goods used as "Raw-
Material" for the purpose.

      We are afraid, in the infinite variety of ways in which these
problems present themselves it is neither necessary nor wise to enun-
ciate principles of any general validity intended to. cover all cases. The
matter must rest upon the facts of each case. Though in many cases it          c
might be difficult to draw a line of demarcation, it is easy to discern on
which side of the border-line a particular case falls.

     Sri Ganguly's insistence, however, serves to recall the pertinent
observtions of an eminent author on the point. It was said:                    D

            " ..... A common form of argument used by counsel in
            legal cases is to suggest that if the court decides in favour of
            the opposing counsel's arguments, it will become necessary
            to draw lines which may be very difficult or impossible to
            draw. "Where will you draw the line"? Is, of course, a             E
            question which must be faced by a legislator who is actually
            proposing to lay down lines for all future cases, but it is not
            a question which needs in general to be faced by common
            law courts who proceed in slow stages, moving from case to
            case ..... ''
                                                                               F
            [See: "Pragmatism and Theory in English Law:; page 75;
            Hamlyn Lectures of 1987]

The learned author recalls Lord Lindley's "robust answer" to the
question: Where will you draw the line?·
                                                                               G
            "Nothing is more common in life than to be unable to draw
            the line between two things. Who can draw the line bet-
            ween plants and animals? And yet who has any difficulty in
            saying that aJ:Loak-tree is a plant and not an animal?"

            [See: Att. Gen v. Brighton & Hove Co-operative Assoc.,             H
            [ 1900] 1 Ch. 276 at p. 282]
    334         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A   Again, Lord Coleridge in Mayor of Southportv. Morris, [1893] 1 Q.B.
    359 at 361 said:

               "The Attorney-General has asked where we are to draw
               the line. The answer is that it is not necessary to draw it at
               any precise point. It is enough for us to say that the present
B              case is on the right side of any line that could reasonably be
               drawn."

           10. In the result for the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in
    this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.

C G.N.                                                   Appeal dismissed.