JUDGMENT

Bharucha, J.-The respondents imported two consignments of cups which are parts of taper roller bearings. They filed bills of entry for clearance classifying the goods under entry 8482.99 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and claimed the benefit of the concessional rate of duty provided by an Exemption Notification (No. 70/89).

2. The relevant part of the Exemption Notification reads thus :

"6. Parts of goods covered by S1.No. 5 above namely :

(a) Cups and Cones of roller bearings covered by items (a) and (b) of Sl. No. 5 above

(b) Inner and outer rings of roller bearings covered by items (a) and (b) of Sl. No. 5 above

(c) Others

The rate of duty applicable to the bearings of which they are parts.

-do-

150% ad valorem".

Serial No. 5 therein referred to relates to "roller bearings of all types".

3. The goods, according to the appellants, were correctly classifiable under Sl. No. 6(a) above, whereas the respondents wanted the benefit of classification under Sl. No. 6(c).

4. The respondents filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The goods were allowed to be cleared by the High Court on the basis of a provisional assessment extending the benefit to the respondents of Sl.No. 6(c). The appellants preferred a Special Leave Petition to this Court; therein the appellants were directed to issue a show cause notice to the respondents and finalise the assessment of the goods by 6th September, 1991.

5. A notice in this behalf was issued. The respondents were heard and the Collector of Customs (Judicial) made an order on 30th August, 1991. He held that the goods were covered by Sl. No. 6(c) and not Sl. No. 6(a). For the purposes of valuation, he rejected the transaction value of the goods inasmuch as the goods had been imported from a trader in Hongkong and the price list of the manufacturer of the goods had not been produced. The transaction value of the goods was ridiculously low when compared to the c.i.f. value of different brands of similar goods. In the Collector s view, the transaction value was, in the circumstances, unacceptable. The Collector noted the price lists of imported bearings of Chinese, Russian, Czechoslovakian and German origin and, by arduous reasoning, concluded that one set of the goods should be valued at Rs. 5.64 per cup and the other set at Rs. 21.38 per cup.

6. The respondents appealed to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal against the Collector s findings on classification and valuation. The appellants preferred an appeal in regard to penalty and fine (with which we are not here concerned).

7. The Tribunal found, thus :

"Cups and cones of roller bearings are two separate entities by themselves as known in the concerned trade and industry. Each is a readily identifiable component and both these parts put together would almost constitute a bearing without certain small parts. Cups and cones are the major component parts of bearings and this appears to be the reason behind assessing cups and cones when imported together at the same rate as applicable to the bearings, as cups and cones imported together acquire the essential character of a bearing."

The meaning of the words "and" and "or" as set out in law lexicons and judgments was then adverted to. As far as the Exemption Notification was concerned, it was clear to the Tribunal that the imported cups did not fall within the term "Cups and cones" against Sl. No. 6(a), but they fell within the term "Others" against Sl. No. 6(c). It was not, the Tribunal observed, a question of the respondents (importers) "seeking to read the word "and" as "or", but of interpreting the word "and" and "and", that is, in conjunctive manner". Regarding valuation, the Tribunal found that the Collector had compared unbranded bearings with bearings bearing reputed brand names. He had compared the assessable value of the cups, which he had held to be of Chinese origin, with the price of bearings imported from Czechoslova