MAHINDRA ENGINEERING AND CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                  MAHINDRA ENGINEERING AND
                    CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LTD.
                                      v.
                     UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                            JANUARY 21, 1992
B
               [S. R. PANDIAN AND R. M. SAHA!, JJ.]

         Central Excise-Tari.ff-Item No. 22F(4)--Const111ction-Legislative
    intention- "Following namely", "that is to say ", "other manufacture",
    "mamifacture therejYom "--Meaning.
c                                                                             -r
         Central Excise-Tariff-Item No.22F(4), Item No.68--G/ass fabric
    manufactured out mineral fibre--Whether exigible to duty---,4rc Chamber
    housing manufactured from glass fabric-Duty-Exigibility.

         The appellant was manufacturing the tubular shaped arc chamber
D   housings from glass fabrics.

          The Assistant Collector levied duty under tariff Item No.22F(4)
    of the Central Excise and Tariff Act. It was held that the goods
    were covered under tariff item 22F(4) as the percentage of the min-
    eral fibre yarn was predominant in the weight.
E
         The Collector in appeal held that the words "manufactured ,
    therefrom" in tariff Item No.22F(4) would include not only first
    manufacture of mineral fibre and yarn but also subiequent manu-
    t\cture wherein mineral fibre or yarn was used.

F         The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Collector, oh construc-
    tion of the expression "manufacture therefrom", and held that the
    goods should he manufactured from mineral fibre and yarn, that
    glass fabric was an intermediate stage between glass arc housing
    and glass fibre or yarn, yet the goods were exigible to duty under
    item 22F(4), as the arc housing chamber did not cease to be manu-
G   factured of glass fibre/yarn, merely because the fibre/yam was first
    woven into glass fabric, and that if glass fibres/yarn were to be
    woven into fabrics before they could be used in the manufacture of
    the housing, the housing would not cease to be a manufacture of
    glass fibres/yarn.

H        A five-judge Bench of the CEGAT did not agree with the inter-

                                     254
                  .MAHINDRA ENGINEERING v. U.O.l. ·.·               255

 pretation put by the Tribunal and held that the entry applied to          A
 only those products the manufacture or attendant function of which
 was to do something with mineral fibre and yarn and it did not
 apply to a productin which o!'IY mineral fibre or yarn was used.

      Again~! the order of CEGAT, the appellant manufacturer pre-
 ferred the appeal before this Court by special leave.                     B

      Allowing the appeal, this Court,

        HELD: 1.01. The entry is in two parts, one, descriptive and
 the other explanatory. Both are to be read together to bring out the
 scope and extent of .its applicability fully. The first declares the      C
 items which are exigible to duty but restricts it to only tho_se in
 relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily car-
 ried on with the aid of power. The words 'following namely' used in
 the second part explains the items that .ycre intended to be covered
 in this entry. Use of expressions 'namely' or 'that is to say' followed
 by description of goods is usually exhaustive unless there arc strong     D
 indications to the contrary. [257 G 258 A)

       1.02. Language of serial no.4 is plain and simple. It intends
 to clarify the expression 'manufacture therefrom' by expanding it
 to include in its ambit even those manufactures .in which fibre or
 yarn predominated in weight. But it did not go beyond it and pur- E
 ported to include manufactures out of manufacture.of a commodity
 in which mineral fibre or yarn predominated. Any other construc-
 tion would result in altering the principal clause. That would be
 contrary to the scheme of the entry and principle of construction.·
 Its only effect was to include even those manufactures in which
 mineral fibre or yarn or both predominate. It could not be extended F
 to those goods which were manufactured out of certain commodity
 in which mineral fibre or yarn had been predominately used.
 [258 A-B, DJ

      1.03. The word 'other manufacture' has to be read in the
 same sense as 'manufacture therefrom' used in the main part. The          G
 only difference is that the scope has been widened to include not
·only those goods which were manufactured from mineral or yarn
 but even to those in which they predominate. [258 D-E]
       2.01!. Glass fabric manufactured out of mineral fibre is exigi-
 blc to duly under ltem no. 4 but arc chamber housing manufactured         H
    256                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1992] I S.C.R.

A   from glass fabric cannot be placed at par with glass fabric and
    cannot be considered as 'other manufacture' of glass fibre or yarn.
    (258 F]
          2.02. The arc chamber housing manufactured out of glass
    fabric are held to be cxigible to duty during the relevant period
B   under item no.68. [258 F]                ·

            Geep Flas/ight Industries v. Union of India, 1986(6) ELR 430,
    referred to.                                                  ·

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil. Appeal No. 3251 of
    1984.                                                                        ....). ..
c
         From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.1984 of the Customs Excise
    and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. ED(SB)(f)
    A. No. 1132of1983-D. (Order No. 168/84-D).                             '

            S. Ganesh and Amitabh Marwah for the Appellants.
D
            C. V. Sobba Rao for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        R.M. SAHAI, J. The question of law that arises for consideration In
E this appeal directed against Order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Con-
    trol) Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT'), New Delhi, is if the
    tubular shaped arc chamber housings manufactured by the appellants from
    glass fabrics which they purchased from manufacturers was exigible to
    duty under tariff Item No. 2F(4) ·or under residuary Item No. 68 of the
    Central Excise and Tariff Act.
F
          Manner of manufacture of arc chamber housing was not in dispute
    nor there was any dispute that it was manufactured from glass fabric
    purchased from open market in which glass fibre predominated. The issue
    was whether the arc chamber manufactured from glass fibre, a product of
    intem1ediate stage and not directly from mineral fibre or yam was exi~i­
G   ble to duty under Item 22F(4) which read as under:

                 "22.F. Mineral fibres and yam and manufacturers therefrom,
                 in or in relation to the manufacturer of which any process is
                 ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, the following,
                 namely;
H
              MA!IlNDRA ENGINEERING v. U.0.1. [SAHA!, J.]                 257

            (I) Glass fibres and yarn including glass tissues and glass          A
                 wool;
            (2) asbestos fibre and yarn;
            (3) any .other mineral fibre or yarn, whether continuous. or
                otherwise, such as, slag wool and rock wool;
            (4) Other manufacturers in which mineral fibres or yarn or           B
                both predo~inate m predominates in weight. .
                 Explanation:-   This item does not include asbestos ce,
                 ment products."
       The Assistant Collector held that the goods were covered under
tariff Item 22F(4) as the percentage of the mineral fibre yam was pre-
                                                                                 c
dominant in the weight. In appeal it was held that the words "manufac-
tured therefrom" in tariff Item No. 22F(4) would include not only first
manufacture of mineral fibre and yarn but also subsequent manufacture
wherein· mineral fibre or yam was used. The order was affirmed by the
Tribunal on construction or' the expression "manufacture therefrom" which
                                                                             D
were capable of a simple and straightaway meaning that the goods should
be manufactured from mineral fi.bre and yarn. The CEGAT held that glass
fabric was no doubt an intermediate stage lietween glass arc housing and
glass fibre or yarn yet the goods were exigible to duty under 22F(4), as the
arc housing chamber did not cease to be manufacture of glass fibre/yam
merely because the fibre/yam was first woven into glass fabric. It rejected
                                                                             E
the claim of appellant as the construction suggested would result in read-
ing the word directly in item No. 22F(4). It was found that if glass fibres/
yarn were to be woven into fabrics before they could be used in the
manufacture of the housing, the housing would not cease to be a manufac-
ture of glass fibres/yam. Subsequently a five-Judge Bench of the CEGAT
did not agree with the interpretation put by the Tribunal in this case, and F
held that the entry applied to only those products the manufacture or
attendant [unction of which was to do something with mineral fibre and
yarn. It did not apply to a product in which only mineral fibre or yarn was
used.

       The entry is in two parts, one, descriptive and the other explanatory.    G
 Both are to be read together to bring out the scope and extent of its
 applicabiiity fully. The first declares the items which are exigible to duty.
 But restricts it to only those in relation to the manufacture of which any
proc_ess is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. Having ihus speci-
·fied the items and the condition on which it wotlid be covered in the entry
 it proceeds.to amplify it in the second part by using the words 'following      H
    258                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1992] 1 S.C.R.

A   namely' thus explaining the items that were intended to be covered in this
    entry. Use of expressions 'namely', or 'that is to say' followed by.descrip-
    tion of goods is usually exhaustive unless there are strong indications to ·
    the contrary. Language of serial no. 4 is plain and simple. It intends to
    clarify the expression 'manufacture therefrom' by expanding it to include
    in its ambit even those manufactures in which fibre or yarn predominated
B   in weight. But it did not go beyond it and purported to include manufac-
    tures out of manufacture of a commodity in which mineral fibre or yarn ·
    predominated. The entry was added in 1980. Th:it gave an occasion fo~
    the learned counsel for Union of India to nrge that it was intended. to
    evade payment of duty by widening and expanding the ambit of entry. In
    our opinion the item cannot be construed in the ma.llner suggested. The
C   entry was widened but to the extent indicated above. Any other construc-
    tion would result in. altering the principal clause. That would be contrary
    to the scheme ()f the entry and principle of construction. Its only effect
    was to include even those manufactures in which mineral fibre or yarn or
    both predominate.· It could not be extended to those goods which were
    manufactured out of certain commodity in which mineral fibre or yam had
D   been predominantly used. The word 'other manufacture' has to be read in
    the .same sense as 'manufacture therefrom' used in the main part. The
    only difference is that the scope has been widened to include not only
    those goods which were manufactured from mineral or yarn but even to
    those in which they predominate. The construction as suggested by the
    learned counsel for Union of India shall not op.]y change the nature of
E   entry but it shall result in extending to manufactures at any stage. In. Geep
    Flaslight Industries v. Union of lndia,[1986]6 ELR 430, the entry of
     'articles of plastic' was construed to mean as article made wholly of
    commodity commonly known as plastic to avoid any artificial reading.
    The word 'wholly' was read in the entry to render it workable. Thus glass
    fabric manufactured out of mineral fibre is exigible to duty under item no.
F   4 but arc chamMr housing manufactured from. glass fabric cannot be
    placed at par with glass fabric and cannot be considered as 'other.manu:
    facture' of glass fibre or yarn.

           For reasons stated above this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
    orders of Tribunal, Collector and Assistant Collector are set aside. The arc
G   chamber housing manufactured out of glass fabric are held to be exigible
    to duty during the relevant period under item no.68. The appellant shall be
    entitled to its costs.

    V.P.R.                                                     Appeal allowed.