Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (4) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al feed and feed supplements. The punctuation mark, after categorising animal feed and feed supplements , as one class, is very important. The Legislature intended, therefore, to put animal feed and feed supplements in one category. The Legislature intended to provide for nil rate of duty to specified items mentioned in entry 5. Dog and cat feed are not mentioned in those items. Therefore no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. - Civil Appeal No. 2274 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2007 - KAPADIA S.H. AND SUDERSHAN REDDY B. JJ. S.K. Bagaria, Senior Advocate (R.V. Prasad, Praveen Kumar and Chandra Shekhar Mulherkar, Advocates with him) for the appellant. Sanjay R. Hedge, Vikrant Yadav, Anil Kumar Chawla and R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... supplements" in entry 5 shows that the Legislature intended the words "feed supplements" to be confined to poultry feed, cattle feed, pig feed, fish feed, fish meal, prawn feed and shrimp feed. In other words, according to the appellant, animal feed and feed supplements are two expressions in entry 5 which should be read disjunctively and not conjunctively. It is submitted that each of the aforesaid three categories of goods covered by entry 5 is quite complete and independent in itself. That, meaning of the expression "and" appearing between first category and second category and between second category and third category is that in addition to first category, goods of second category and third category are also covered by the said entry. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ond category of goods covered by the entry. It has been used after "feed supplements" and its effect is that feed supplements covered by the entry are processed commodity sold as poultry feed, cattle feed, pig feed, fish feed, fish meal, prawn feed and shrimp feed; that the said word "namely" does not in any way qualify or relate to the goods of first category and third category. Animal feed is covered by first category and it is a stand alone item and this category is quite independent and capable of operating by itself and independently. That, if the expression "namely" is held to qualify even "animal feed" covered by first category, then all conditions and restrictions mentioned in the entry for the goods of second category will also bec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Legislature has not included dog feed/cat feed, therefore, the products of the appellant do not fall under entry 5 of the First Schedule to the Act. In our view, the basic premise on which the argument of the assessee proceeds is that entry 5 covers three categories of goods, namely, animal feed, feed supplements and feed supplements and mineral mixtures. This premise is wrong. A bare reading of the said entry indicates "animal feed and feed supplements" as constituting one category. They are not two separate categories. The punctuation mark "comma" has been used expressly after the words "animal feed and feed supplements", which indicates that the Legislature intended to classify these two items as one class/ category. Further, the Legis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is supplied) It was held that RP Act, 1951 was a special law. It was held that the period of limitation prescribed under the RP Act, 1951 was different from the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. The question before this court was whether for the purposes of computing the period of thirty days prescribed under section 116-A(3) of the RP Act, 1951, the provisions of section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908 could be invoked. It was held that section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 would apply even to a case where the period prescribed under the special law differed from the period prescribed under the Limitation Act (see para 23). Alternatively, even on construction of section 29(2) it was held that there was no rule of grammatica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates