1986 (10) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition and classification of a single dry cell as a dry battery under Central Excise Tariff item 31(1).
2. Interpretation of technical terms and their relevance in legal and tax contexts.
3. The role of advertisements in determining the classification of goods for tax purposes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Classification of a Single Dry Cell as a Dry Battery:
The core dispute revolves around whether a single dry cell manufactured by M/s Toshiba Anand Batteries qualifies as a dry battery assessable under item 31(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants argued that a single cell is not a battery, citing definitions from various technical sources such as the Electrical Engineers Reference Book and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which typically define a battery as an assembly of two or more cells. They emphasized that a battery should consist of multiple cells connected to perform a specific function collectively.

However, the tribunal noted that the primary purpose of both a single dry cell and an assembly of cells is the production of electrical energy. They referenced multiple technical authorities, including the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology and the Condensed Chemical Dictionary, which recognize that a single cell can be referred to as a battery in common usage. The tribunal concluded that a single dry cell, capable of producing electrical energy, falls under the description of an electrical battery, and thus, is assessable under Central Excise Tariff item 31(1).

2. Interpretation of Technical Terms:
The appellants argued that technical terms should be interpreted with the help of technical authorities and cited Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes to support this view. They contended that the term "battery" should be understood in its technical sense, which generally implies an assembly of cells. The tribunal acknowledged this argument but also emphasized the importance of common parlance in classification matters. They referenced various technical and non-technical sources that use the term "battery" to describe both single cells and assemblies of cells, thereby justifying the classification of a single dry cell as a battery.

3. Role of Advertisements in Determining Classification:
The appellants argued that advertisements should not form the basis for the classification of goods, citing previous judgments to support their claim that advertisements do not create estoppel in taxation matters. The tribunal agreed that advertisements should not be the sole basis for assessment but noted that they can reflect common parlance and public understanding of the goods. The tribunal emphasized that the classification should be based on the primary function and common understanding of the product, rather than solely on how it is advertised.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that a single dry cell qualifies as a dry battery under Central Excise Tariff item 31(1), based on its primary function of producing electrical energy and its recognition as a battery in both technical literature and common parlance. The tribunal rejected the appellants' claim and upheld the department's classification, emphasizing that there is no technical basis for excluding single dry cells from the definition of a battery. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the single dry cell was ruled assessable under the specified tariff item.