1986(09)LCX0002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Nainar Sundaram, J.

VENKATESWARA STAINLESS STEEL AND WIRE INDUSTRIES, MADRAS

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Writ Petition No. 4062 to 4067 of 1980, decided on 29-9-1986

ADVOCATES : Mr. Habibullah Badshah, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Javid Khan, for Additional Central Standing Counsel, for the Respondents.

[Order]. - The petitioner in these six writ petitions wanted to bring stainless steel circles imported by it under Heading 73.15(1) of the First Schedule, hereinafter referred to as the Schedule, to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (Act No. 51 of 1975). That has not been accepted by the authorities concerned and they have brought the stainless steel circles under Heading 73.15(2) of the Schedule. Heading 73.15 as a whole reads as follows :

According to the petitioner, stainless steel circles imported by it cannot fall within the category of ‘sheets’ under Heading 73.15(2) as opined by the authorities and they could only come under Heading 73.15(1) of the Schedule. The expression ‘sheets’ occurring under Heading 73.15(2) does not stand clarified by any note. in contrast. Note ‘n’ to Heading 73.13 which mentions about sheets and plates of iron or steel, hot rolled or cold roiled, annexes a particular meaning to ‘sheets’ or ‘plates’. Heading 73.13 reads as follows :

Note ‘n’ thereto runs in the following terms :

“sheets and plates - rolled products (heading No. 73.13) other than coils for re-rolling as defined in paragraph (k) above of any thickness and, if in rectangles of a width exceeding 500 millimetres.”

Heading 73.13 is to be taken to apply, inter alia, to sheets or plates which have been cut to non-rectangular shape, perforated, corrugated, channelled, ribbed, polished or coated, provided that they do not thereby assume the character of articles or of products falling within other Headings.” The expression ‘sheets’ need not necessarily be given any restricted meaning so as to exclude circles. Heading 73.15 speaks about alloy steel and high carbon steel (which takes in stainless steel also) in the forms in the preceding Headings 73.06/07 to 73.14, which includes Heading 73.13 also. It is only in this context note ‘n’ may be looked into when it says that Heading No. 73.13 is to be taken to apply, inter alia, to sheets or plates, which have been cut to non-rectangular shape. May be it could be stated that note ‘n’ could have reference and relevance to Heading 73.13 alone; and not to heading 73.15 and that exactly is the argument forth by Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even without reference to note ‘n’ to Heading 73.13, in the absence of any restriction laid down to the meaning to be annexed to the expression ‘sheets’ occurring in Heading 73.15(2) it is not possible to exclude stainless steel circles from the category of ‘sheets’ and bring it under the residuary Heading 73.15(1). A similar contention was raised before a Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Super Traders and another v. Union of India and others, 1983 (12) ELT 258, and the Bench after adverting to note ‘n’ to Heading 73.13, expressed the view that a non-rectangular shape may be in the form of circle, may be of a shape having different angles, like being quandrangular or Hexagon, and no reasonable interpretation will exclude ‘circles’ from ‘sheets’ in general. But, as I have already stated, even without reference to and relying on note ‘n’ to Heading 73.13, in the absence of an express exclusion of ‘circles’ from ‘sheets’ occurring in Heading 73.15(2), it is not possible to take away ‘circle’ from ‘sheets’ as such occurring under that Heading. The expression ‘sheet’ is generic and it means an expanse or a spread out. Sheet could be in any form, in circle, square, rectangular, hexagonal, octagonal. Merely because sheet takes the shape of a circle, it may not be permissible to take it out of the category of sheet, and it continues to be a sheet only. The shape of the sheet is of no consequence at all, so long there is no specific exclusion of circles from the generic term ‘sheets’.

2. Mr. Habibulla Badsha learned counsel for the petitioner, would also submit that the matter is not above ambiguity, and in such a case, the fiscal statute must be construed beneficial to and in favour of the citizen. I am not able to spell out any ambiguity with regard to bringing stainless steel ‘circles’ which are also ‘sheets’ within the general term ‘sheets’ occurring in Heading 73.15(2) and hence there is no need to advert to this principle at all.

3. Learned counsel would also urge that the analogous legislations have dealt with ‘circles’ separately and he draws my attention to items 26A and 27 of the First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the concerned notification in the Customs Act, as well as the dealing of ‘circles’ separately under the Import Control Policy for the year 1979-80. In my view, that by looking into analogous statutes or provisions, it is not possible to construe the provision of the particular statute, with which we are concerned and the principle is well settled that no tax can be imposed or excluded by analogy.

4. Learned counsel would also submit that the specifications of stainless coils and circles have been given by the Indian Standard Institution, and that also deals with ‘circles’ separately. We are not concerned with the standard dimensions for ‘sheets’, ‘coils’ and circles’. We are here more concerned with the question as to whether ‘sheets’ could take in ‘circles’ also. Hence, no inspiration could be drawn from the said specifications for finding a solution to the question in issue. I have found no reason to exclude ‘circles’ from the purview of ‘sheets’ occurring in Heading 73.15(2).

5. For all these reasons, I am not able to persuade myself to interfere with the orders passed by the second respondent, which are being impugned in these writ petitions, and accordingly the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs.

Equivalent 1986 (26) ELT 201 (Mad.)