NDLI: Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar (punjab) Vs. M/s D.l. Steels Etc

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1975 Dispute regarding classification Customs Tariff Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Dispute regarding classification of dried pomegranate seeds/‘anardana’ in tariff entries under Heading 0813 as claimed by the Customs Authorities or under Heading 1209 as claimed by the Respondents/importers – Respondents imported two consignments of ‘anardana’ from Pakistan and they classified the goods under the tariff sub-heading 1209.99.90 which attracts basic custom duty at the rate of 5% plus education cess at the rate of 2% – However, according to Customs Authorities the goods falls under sub- heading 0813.40.90 which attracts basic customs duty at the rate of 30% plus education cess at the rate of 2% – Adjudicating authority confirmed the differential duty and imposed a personal penalty on the Respondent along with interest – First appeal preferred by the Respondents were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) opining that the Heading 0810 applies to the type of pomegranate which is consumed as a fruit and on the other hand, goods/‘anardana’ were the dried form of a type of pomegranate which, when fresh, is not consumed as a fruit, therefore heading 0810 would have no relevance to the type of pomegranate from which the goods are obtained – Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred appeals before the CESTAT – Appeal was dismissed observing that in Explanatory Notes to the Heading 1209, the goods did not fall in the list of items expressly excluded from sub-heading 1209.99.09, they very well stood included in the subheading 1209.99.90 and therefore, sub-heading 0813.40.90 was not applicable – Further, words in a taxing statute must be construed in the same sense as understood in common or trade parlance, and the Revenue had failed to lead any evidence to support its contention that in trade parlance, the goods are understood as dried fruits – On appeal, held: Once the finding of fact recorded by the CESTAT is accepted that ‘anardana’ is a dried product of local ‘daru’ or wild pomegranate, which grows in mid hill conditions and which fruit in its fresh form is different from the pomegranate included in clause 7 to Heading 08.10, as this wild pomegranate is not consumed as a fresh fruit, the contention of the Revenue must fail – Classification arrived by CESTAT upheld.Interpretation of Statutes – Principle of Common Parlance/ Common Parlance test – When a word is not explicitly defined, or there is ambiguity as to its meaning, it must be interpreted for the purpose of classification in the popular sense, which is the sense attributed to it by those people who are conversant with the subject matter that the statute is dealing with – It is an extension of the general principle of interpretation of statutes for deciphering the mind of the law-maker – However, the above rule is subject to certain exceptions, for example, when there is an artificial definition or special meaning attached to the word in a statute, then the ordinary sense approach would not be applicable.Words and Phrases – Meaning of the word ‘edible’ – Derived from the latin word ‘edibilis’ which means eatable - must be construed using the principle of common parlance test. Words and Phrases – Meaning of the word ‘seed’ – In common parlance and in commercial sense means the grains or ripened ovules of plants using for sowing- ‘anardana’ is prepared by dehydrating the arils of wild pomegranates and not from the pomegranate which is eaten as a fresh fruit.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 666
Petitioner	Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise, Amritsar (punjab)
Respondent	M/s D.l. Steels Etc
SCR	[2022] 17 S.C.R. 151
Judgement Date	2022-07-11
Case Number	2360

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar (punjab) Vs. M/s D.l. Steels Etc

Please Log-in to view this content

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad Vs. M/s. Ceat Ltd., Nasik

M/s. H.v. Industrial Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs

Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. M/s. Maharshi Ayurveda Corporation Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. M/s. Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd.

Cc (preventive) Amritsar Vs. M/s. Malwa Industries Ltd

M/s. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

M/s. Hmt Ltd . Vs. Commnr. Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad

Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur, Etc. Etc. Vs. M/s Surendra Cotton Oil Mills and Fert. Co. Etc. Etc.

M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-iii

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar (punjab) Vs. M/s D.l. Steels Etc

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar (punjab) Vs. M/s D.l. Steels Etc

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad Vs. M/s. Ceat Ltd., Nasik

M/s. H.v. Industrial Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs

Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. M/s. Maharshi Ayurveda Corporation Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. M/s. Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd.

Cc (preventive) Amritsar Vs. M/s. Malwa Industries Ltd

M/s. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

M/s. Hmt Ltd . Vs. Commnr. Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad

Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur, Etc. Etc. Vs. M/s Surendra Cotton Oil Mills and Fert. Co. Etc. Etc.

M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-iii

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar (punjab) Vs. M/s D.l. Steels Etc