S. Venkatesan, Senior Vice-President

1. These are two appeals against the combined order dated 3-9-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, in respect of two appeals to him by the appellants. Since both the matters are interconnected and relate to the same issue, they are dealt with in this common order.

2. The short point for consideration in these appeals is whether the "Landholders manufactured by the appellants are covered by Item 61 of the Central Excise Tariff. The description of Item 61 reads as follows :-

"Electric Lighting Fittings, namely :-

Switches, Plugs and Sockets, all kinds ;

Chokes and Starters for Fluorescent Tubes."

It has been held by the Collector (Appeals) that lamp-holders are in the nature of sockets (which are specified in Item 61) and as such they would be covered under that item. As against this, it is the contention of the appellants that lampholders are not known in trade parlance as sockets, and that in accordance with the principle that goods should be classified according to their popular meaning, or the meaning attached by those who deal with them, that is, in the commercial sense, they cannot be regarded as sockets and would therefore fall outside Item 61 and be covered by the residuary Item 68.

3. In their two appeals the appellants had raised some points which were in the nature of complaints that the principles of natural justice had not been observed. When the matter came up for hearing, we specifically asked Shri Ramakrishnan who appeared for the appellants whether they were pressing these grounds and would like us to remand the matter for a fresh decision by the lower authorities. Shri Ramakrishnan stated that they would like a decision on merits by the Tribunal and were therefore not pressing their points relating to natural justice. We thereafter heard Shri Ramakrishnan on the merits of the appeals.

4. Shri Ramakrishnan showed us samples of the lamp-holders manufactured by the appellants. These are the Articles commonly seen in houses and factories, into which electric bulbs are fixed. Shri Ramakrishnan also showed us some samples of three-pin plugs which are commonly used for connecting some electrical appliances to a current outlet, and the corresponding socket outlets. It was his contention that it was only these socket outlets which were commercially known as sockets, and that the lampholders were not so known.

5. Shri Ramakrishnan cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Advani-Oerlikon Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors ( 1981 ELT 432 ). In para 6 of that judgment reference had been made to various judicial decisions, including that of the Supreme Court in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India [MANU/SC/0274/1977 : AIR 1977 SC 497], wherein it was held that meanings given to Articles in a fiscal statute must be as. people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject, generally treat and under stand them in the usual course. A further quotation from the same judgment of Supreme Court is that "it is well-established that in interpreting the meaning of words in a taxing statute, the acceptation of a particular word by the trade and its popular meaning shall commend itself to the authority". Shri Ramakrishnan relied on these judgments for the proposition that it was the commercial meaning or the popular meaning of an expression which should be adopted for construing an entry in the Central Excise Tariff.

6. Thereafter Shri Ramakrishnan referred to certain Indian Standard Specifications. One of these was IS: 1293-1967, titled "Specification for three-pin plugs and socket-outlets". The other was IS : 1258-1967, titled "Specification for Bayonet Lampholders". According to him the existence of these specifications clearly showed that a socket (otherwise known as a socket outlet) was something which was complementary to a plug, and it was different and distinct from a lampholder. Shri Ramakrishnan argued and if one went to the market and asked for