1998(5) Supreme 550
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
S.C. Agrawal, G.B. Pattanaik and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
The Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Asmaco Plastic Industries & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3491 of 1992
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3492/92, 3493/92 & 7087-7088 of 1993
Decided on 17-7-98
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : (V.A. Bobde, Sr. Advocate, D.N. Mishra), Advocate for M/s. JBD & Col, Advocates, B.N. Singhvi Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : (R.F. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, Vivek Gambhir, D.P. Chaturvedi, Ms. Charu Bhargave, U.A. Rana, Sudhanshu Tripathi, Ms. Manju Mishra, K.J. John, Advocates.
(ii) Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888-Municipal Corporation (Levy of) Octroi Rules, 1965 -Item 32(c) of Schedule H-‘Plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder’-Whether for the purpose of levy of octroi duty Synthetic Hydrocarbon resin is to be treated as ‘plastic, plastic goods, plastic powder’? (Yes)-Bombay High Court reversed.
Judgment
Rajendra Babu, J.-In these appeals, the questions that arise for consideration are as follows :-
(i) Whether for the purpose of levy of Octroi duty P.V.C. Resins in Powder form would fall under ‘plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder’ in Item 53(c) of Schedule I to Maharashtra Municipality (Octroi Duty) Rules, 1968 framed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 or under Item 32(c) of Schedule H to the Municipal Corporation (Levy of) Octroi Rules, 1965 framed under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
(ii) Whether for the purpose of levy of Octroi duty Synthetic Hydrocarbon resin is to be treated as ‘plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder’ in Item 32(c) of Schedule H to the Municipal Corporation (Levy of) Octroi Rules 1965 framed under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
2. Civil Appeals Nos. 3491-93 of 1992 relate to Octroi duty levied by the Municipal Corporation of Thane which is governed by the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Octroi duty is levied by the said Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipality (Octroi duty) Rules, 1968 and the relevant entries which were considered by the High Court were Entry 40(b) relating to “chemicals of all sorts” and Entry 53(c) relating to “plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder, etc.” In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court has held that P.V.C. Resins Powder form does not fall under “plastic” in Entry 53(c) but falls under “chemicals” in Entry 40(b).
3. Civil Appeals Nos. 7087-88 of 1993 relate to Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay which is governed by Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Municipal Corporation (Levy of) Octroi Rules 1965. In that case, relevant Entry is Entry 32(c) which, with slight difference, is similar to Entry 53(c) and in the said entry also the words “plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder” have been used.
4. The respondents filed writ petitions to contend that the said goods are only ingredients used in the manufacture of plastic goods and, therefore, are neither plastic in nature nor powder in form; that it is not a resin and all resin must be regarded as polymers and not plastics; that unless other ingredients like stabilizer and lubricants are used; that there cannot be solidarity in its finished state and shaping by flow at some stages of its manufacture; that the said product is neither a perfume nor a toilet requisite, a colour or a household good and does not answer the description of goods listed under the particular class and, therefore, they contended that they do not constitute plastic. They also set out before the High Court in challenging the action of the respondent certain technical details as to the nature of the commodity in question and contended that the levy of Octroi duty on the said product under Item No. 32(c) of Schedule H or Entry 53(c) of Schedule I under relevant Rules is not appropriate. The substance of the contentions put forth on behalf of the respondents is that plastic is a material that contains a high polymer usually synthetic, combined with other ingredients such as curatives, fillers, reinforcing agents, colorants, plasticisers etc. while synthetic resin of which the said product is but one type is a polymer synthesized, in this particular case, for adhesive use. Secondly it was stated that synthetic resin is a polymer itself while plastic is polymer plus the additives mentioned as aforesaid. Therefore, they contended that the product in the form of pellets and not in the form of powder could be covered by Item No. 32(c) of the Schedule to the said Act. They further pointed out that hydrocarbon resin is distinct from plastic. Entry 40(b) relates to chemical of all sorts, while Entry 53(c) relates to plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder, etc. The Bombay High Court held that the P.V.C. resin in powder form does not fall under plastic and plastic goods under Entry 53(c) o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.