SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND R. M. SAHAI, JJ.
M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
Collector of Central Excise and others etc. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2702 of 1984 (with Civil Appeals Nos. 2785 of 1984, 813 of 1986, 3632-34 o;f 1988, 1102 and 4939 of 1989)
Decided on 27-4-1993.
Finance Act, 1964 - Section 8 - Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts - Claim refund of excess excise duty - CEGAT by its order - Appellants laid before Assistant Collector classification list claiming toilet soaps in other appeals Gold and as bath soaps under Tariff Item 15(1) of First Schedule (Household) - By notice August Assistant Collector called upon appellants to show cause as to why they cannot be classified under Tariff Item 15(2) other sorts and to levy excise duty at per cent ad valorem (as then stood) - Appellants after filing their reply thereto and having had personal hearing by proceeding dated November Asstt. Collector classified toilet soaps as other sorts under Tariff Item 15(2) of Schedule - Held, Legal setting and commercial parlance we are of the considered view that toilet soap" being of everyday household use for the purpose of the bath and having removed its separate identity which it enjoyed preceding amendment and having been not specifically included in other sorts it took its shelter in commercial parlance under household - As stated if anybody goes to the market and asks for toilet soap he must ask only for household bathing purpose and not for industrial or other sorts - Even the people dealing with it would supply it only for household purpose - It may be true that household consists of soap used for cleaning utensils, laundry used for cleaning soiled clothes and soap toilet is used for bathing but household is compendiously used, toilet soap is used only by the family for bathing purpose - Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
K. RAMASWAMY, J.:—Common questions of law arose for decision in these 8 appeals need disposal by this judgment. The question relates to classification of "toilet soap" in Excise Item 15 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1 of 1944 as amended in 1964 for short the Act. In addition, in C.A. Nos. 813/86, 3632-34/88 and 1102/89 sequal to its finding, they claim refund of excess excise duty. The facts in C. A. Nos. 2702/84 and 2785/84 are sufficient for disposal. The appellants laid before Assistant Collector classification list claiming "toilet soaps" Kalpa and Oasis, in other appeals Jai, O.K., Moti, Rain Drop, Gold and Ria as bath soaps under Tariff Item 15(1) of the First Schedule (Household). By notice date August 31, -1982, the Assistant Collector called upon the appellants to show cause as to why they cannot be classified under Tariff Item 15(2) other sorts and to levy excise duty at 15 per cent ad valorem (as then stood). The appellants after filing their reply thereto and having had personal hearing, by proceeding dated November 27, 1982, the Asstt. Collector classified toilet soaps as "other sorts under Tariff Item 15(2) of the Schedule. On appeal the Collector by Order dated January 21, 1983 classified them under Tariff Item No. 15(1) "household". On second appeal, the CEGAT by its order dated June 20, 1984 reversed the appellate order and upheld the Assistant Collectors order. Same is the case with regard to all other appeals except resultant claim for refund. In 1954 Tariff Item No. 15A was introduced in the First Schedule of the Act thus:
" 15(A) Soap means all varieties of the product known commercially as soap -
I. Soap, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power or of steam for heating:-
(1) Soap, household and laundry:-
(a) Plain bars of not less than one pound in weight Rupees five & annas four per cwt.
(b) other sorts Rupees six & annas two per cwt.
(2) Soap toilet Rupees fourteen per cwt.
(3) Soap, other than household and laundry or toilet. Rupees fourteen per cwt.
This entry as amended in 1964 reads thus:
" 15. Soap means all varieties of product known commercially as soap -
(1) Soap, household and laundry 20 per cent ad valorem
(2) Other sorts 20 per cent ad valorem
(Ad valorem rate of tariff varies from time to time as per amendments).
Later it was amended in the year 1979 empowering the Govt. to grant exemption under Section 8 of the Act. The details thereof are not material for the purpose of these cases. It is seen that in 1954 in Tariff entry 15A "soap" means all varieties of the product known commercially as soap. Item I provided that soap in relation to its manufacture with the aid of power or of steam for heating, they were classified as Plain bars, other sorts, toilet soaps and soap, other than household or laundry or toilet. While amending the entry in 1964 the language couched therein as seen earlier is thus: soap means all varieties of products known commercially as soap.
(1) Soap, household and Laundry.
(2) "Other sorts" and graded ad valorem tariff has been prescribed. It is seen that household and laundry soap was subjected to levy of tariff at a lesser rate than "other sorts" ad valorem. The contention of Sri Ganguli, the learned Senior counsel for the Union is that statute always kept distinction between soap "household and laundry" and "other sorts". Toilet soap was kept in the packet of other sorts. Household and laundry soaps are being used for cleaning household articles and utensils and washing the clothes while toilet soaps are for bathing purpose. The latter compose of diverse varieties, based on personal liking and taste, are being used. They are commercially known as other sorts but not household. The legislative history furnishes unimpeachable evidence that soaps used for household and laundary are compendiously treated as a class and are subjected to imposition of lesser tariff. They receive their
Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Collector of central Excise
relied on : Manmohan Das v. Bishun Das
Rainavalar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant STO
Motipw-Zamindary Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Indo International Industries v. CST
Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works v. Union of India
Shri Bharuch Coconut Trading Co. v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad
Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of central Excise and Customs
referred to : P.A. Thillai Chidambara Nadar v. Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Madurai
Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India
Anant B. Timbodia v. Union of India
Superintendent of central Excise, Surat v. Vac Metal Corpn. Ltd.
Spaco Carburettors (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay
Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India
Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd.
J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
Doypack Systems (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
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.