TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrol) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant-manufacturer. 2.The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of particle boards. It commenced the production in the year 1979. The first clearances were made in the March of that year. The appellant sought to take advantage of the Exemption Notification No. 55 of 1979 issued by the Central Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This Notification exempted "plywood and boards specified in column (2) of the table hereto annexed and falling under Item No. 16B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty specified against the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table." The Table appended to the said Notification reads as follows : TABLE S. No. Description Rate of Duty (1) (2) (3) 1. Commercial plywood Twenty per cent ad valorem 2. Batten boards and block boards (including flush doors) having both faces of commercial plywood and veneered shooks and panels made up of strips of w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that MFPBs were properly classifiable and dutiable under Tariff Item 68. 4.The short question in this appeal is whether MFPBs can be called `unveneered particle boards' within the meaning of Item 6 of the table appended to Notification No. 55 of 1979? The process of manufacture of particle boards is set out in the order of the Tribunal in the following words : "The manner of manufacture of particle boards by the petitioner is as follows:- Wood is received in the form of logs of approximately 1 mtr.(i) length. The logs are fed into a chipping machine where they are cut into small particles or flakes. These flakes are dried and rifted into the fractions of definite dimension, one forming the core layer and the other for the two face layers. The two fractions of wood particles are independently mixed with U.F. resin and additives in specially designed gluing machines. The glued particles are then spread into a form of mat, forming two face layers and one Central core. The mat thus formed is conveyed to the Hydraulic press where it is subjected to heat and pressure. The boards remain in the press for a pre-determined time after which they are taken out and cooled at room temperat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said : "It is well settled that the commercial meaning has to be given to the expressions in tariff items. Where definition of a word has not been given, it must be construed in its popular sense. Popular sense means that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it." 8.There is no dispute about the above proposition. 9.We have already set out the process of manufacture of particle boards and the MFPBs. It is difficult to say from the said process that MFPBs are unveneered particle boards. Actually, veneered particle boards mean particle boards on both sides of which plywood is pasted. Unveneered particle board is, what we may call, raw particle board. The melamine facing gives it a smooth polished surface. It looks as if the particle board has been laminated on both sides. (We are told by the learned counsel for the appellant that in some cases the melamine facing is done only on one side and not on both the sides.) It is thus difficult to say that the melamine faced particle boards can be described as `unveneered particle boards'. Nobody in the trade circles or in the market would consider both the products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri A.C. Shekhar was also found to be associated with the appellant-company. Both the them deposed before the Tribunal that they did not witness the process of manufacture nor were they able to comment upon the process of manufacture contained in the brochure referred to hereinabove. From a reading of their affidavits, the Tribunal concluded that they are not independent experts and that their affidavits were prepared with a view to bolster the appellant's case in these proceedings. The said experts, the Tribunal observed, did not also try to support their opinions with reference to any technical literature or authority on the subject. For all the above reasons, the Tribunal declined to accept their bare assertion that MFPBs can be described as `unveneered particle boards'. We cannot say that the reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting the said affidavits are either irrelevant or unsustainable. The said affidavits, therefore, do not advance the appellant's case in any manner. 13.The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that since there is an ambiguity about the meaning and purport of Item 6 of the table appended to the Exemption Notification, the benefit of such am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the notification then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction....'''' 15.This was also the view expressed in The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. James Forrest [(1890) 15 A.C. 334] where Lord Halsbury, L.C. observed : "all exemptions from taxation to some extent increase the burden on other members of the community ....'' and in Littman v. Barron (Inspector of Taxes) (1951 (2) A.E.R. 393), a decision of the Court of Appeal where Cohen, L.J. said : "the principle that in case of ambiguity a taxing statute should be construed in favour of a taxpayer does not apply to a provision giving a taxpayer relief in certain cases from a section clearly imposing liability". 16.It is true that in some decisions a contrary view appears to have been expressed. In Caroline M. Armytage Ors. v. Frederick Wilkinson [(1878) 3 A.C. 355], a decision of the Privy Council, it was observed : "Their Lordships have now to consider whether the decision of Mr. Justice Molesworth upon the merits of the application to him is correct. They must begin by expressing their dissent from the principle which seems to have influenced Mr. Justice Molesworth in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i.e., by the plain terms of the exemption. 19.Applying the above principles, we must hold that the words `unveneered particle boards' in Item-6 of the table appended to the Exemption Notification cannot and do not take in melamine faced particle boards. Indeed, the learned counsel for the Revenue contends, and in our opinion rightly, that the said entry does not admit of any doubt, that it is clear and specific and that it covers only unveneered particle boards and nothing else. 20.For the above reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 10,000/- consolidated. 21.It is brought to our notice that by an interim order dated July 30, 1986, this Court directed stay of recovery of arrears of duty on condition that the appellant deposits 50% of the demand within three months from the date of the order and furnishes bank guarantee for the balance. The order reads as follows : "In the facts and circumstances of this particular case, we direct under Article 142 of the Constitutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
