IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The product manufactured being Sodium Carboxymethyle Cellulose which has been tested and found to be Cellulose Ether, is assessable under Entry 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. If in the fiscal statute, the article in question falls within the ambit of a technical term used under a particular entry, then that article cannot be taken away from that entry and placed under the residuary entry on the pretext that the article, even though it comes within the ambit of the technical term used in a particular entry, has acquired some other meaning in market parlance.

Headnote:(i) Excise Tariff-Central Excise Tariff Act-Items 15A(1) and 68-Appellant-company manufactures Sodium Carboxymethyle Cellulose-Product has been testified and found to be Cellulose Ether-Whether this product will come under entry 15A(1) ?-(Yes)-Claim of appellant that the product is classifiable under Item 68 disallowed.
       Held : Cellulose Ether has been made specifically taxable under Entry 15A(1). The product manufactured by the appellant is Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose which has been tested and found to be Cellulose Ether. The question is whether this product will come under Entry 15A(1). It is not the case of the appellant that this product is known in the market by some other name and that name is to be found in some other entry. The Tribunal was right in holding that SCMC manufactured by the appellant answered the description "Cellulose Ether" and as such was assessable under Entry 15A(1). (Para 19)
       (ii) Interpretation of Statutes-Excise tariff-Excisable commodities have to be understood in the sense in which the market understands them and have to be classified accordingly-But when a technical or scientific term has been used by legislature-It must be presumed that legislature has used the term in their technical sense.
       Held, if the word used in a fiscal statute is understood in common parlance or in the commercial world in a particular sense, it must be taken that the Excise Act has used that word in the commonly understood sense. That sense cannot be taken away by attributing a technical meaning to the word. But if the legislature itself has adopted a technical term, then that technical term has to be understood in the technical sense. In other words, if in the fiscal statute, the article in question falls within the ambit of a technical term used under a particular entry, then that article cannot be taken away from that entry and placed under the residuary entry on the pretext that the article, even though it comes within the ambit of the technical term used in a particular entry, has acquired some other meaning in market parlance. (Para 17)
       Further held, the Tribunal has referred to several technical dictionaries and has concluded that the product Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose is an ether. In the background of all these facts, we are unable to uphold the contention that the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that the product manufactured by the appellant falls under Tariff Item 15A. There is ample evidence and technical literature to support the conclusion of the Tribunal and we are not inclined to interfere with the finding made by the Tribunal at this stage. (Para 13)
       (iii) Excise Tariff-Central Excise Rules-Rule 56-Procedure of testing samples-Views expressed by Chief Examiner and Chief Chemist of Government-Cannot be lightly brushed aside on basis of opinion obtained from some private individuals.
       Held : Under Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules, the Central Excise Officer is empowered to take samples for the purpose of testing the samples. He has to communicate the result of such tests to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer is aggrieved by the result of the test, he can request the Assistant Collector that the samples be retested. That procedure has been followed. Therefore, there is no procedural infirmity in the order of the Assistant Collector nor has it been established that the Assistant Collector was wrong in relying on the report of Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemist in preference to the opinion obtained by RCPL from some private individuals. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Sen, J.-M/s. Reliance Cellulose Products Limited, the appellant-company manufactures Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose (hereinafter referred to as SCMC). The contention of the appellant-company is that the product manufactured by them is classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The contention of the Department is that the product comes squarely within the Tariff Item 15A(1) and, therefore, there is no reason to fall back upon the residuary head of Tariff Item No. 68.

2. Tariff item 15A at the material time stood as under :

Artificial or Synthetic Resins and Materials; and Other Materials and Specified below-

(1) condensation, Polycondensation and polyaddition products, whether or not modified of polymerised, and whether or not linear (for example, pheno-plasts, amino-plasts, alkyds, polyallyl esters and other unsaturated polyesters, silicones); polymerisation and co-polymerisation products (for example, Polyethylene, polytetrahaloethylenes, polyisobutylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl chloro-acetate and other polyvinyl derivatives, polyacrylic and polymethacrylic derivatives, coumaroneindene resins); regenerated cellulose; cellulose nitrate, cellulose acetate and other cellulose esters, cellulose ethers and other chemical derivatives of cellulose, plasticised or not (for example, collodions, celluloid); vulcanised fibre, hardened proteins (for example, hardened casein and hardened gelatin); natural resins modified by fusion (run gums); artificial resins obtained by esterification of natural resins or of resinic acids (ester gums); chemical derivatives of natural rubber (for example, chlorinated rubber, rubber hydrochloride, oxidised rubber, cyclised rubber); other high polymers, artificial resins and artificial plastic materials, including alginic acid, its salts and esters; linoxyn.

(2) Articles of materials described in sub-item (1), the following, namely :-

Boards, sheeting, sheets and films, whether lacquered or metalised or laminated or not; lay flat tubings not containing any textile material.

(3) Polyurethane foam.

(4) Articles made of Polyurethane.

Prior to 1.3.82 tariff item 15A stood as under :

"15A. Artificial or Synthetic Resins and Plastic Materials and Cellulose Esters and Ethers, and Articles thereof-

(1) The following artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials, and cellulose esters and ethers in any form, whether solid, liquid or pasty, or as powder, granules or flakes, or in the form of moulding powders, namely:-

x x x x x

(2) x x x x

(3) Polyurethane foam.

(4) Articles made of polyurethane foam.

3. The argument of the appellant is that prior to 1.3.82, the main heading of the Tariff Item 15A included "cellulose esters and ethers" alongwith "artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials." Sub-Item (1) of Tariff Item 15A listed the various materials under three clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) which were to be subjected to Central Excise Duty. After the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1982, the opening sentence of sub-item (1) of Tariff Item 15A, viz. "The following artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials....., namely", clearly indicates that only those materials which were mentioned in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) were to be taxed under Tariff Item 15A(1). Cellulose ether and esters do not figure in any of these three clauses. it means that the clear intention of the legislature was to exclude cellulose esters and ethers from Tariff Item 15A(1).

4. This argument is without any substance because under the amended tariff item 15A under clause (i), various items which have to be taxed under item 15A have been enumerated and "other cellulose esters, cellulose ethers and other chemical derivatives of cellulose plasticised or not (for example, collodions, celluloid)" have been specifically included.

5. The appellant-company filed a classification list on 18.6.82. Their product