ivil Appeal Nos
1506 1507 of 1974
From the Judgment and Order dated 481972 of the Guja rat High Court in Special Civil Appln
No 121 of 1972 and 1187 of 1970
248 GA Shah and MN Shroff for the Appellants
VV Vaze Ms Gitanjali PH Parekh NP Vimal Dave NP and M Mudgal NP for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 481972 quashing the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act Act 1 of 1894 on the ground that the same made on 18th of January 1969 was issued beyond rea sonable time
The short facts are The preliminary notification under section 41 of the Act was made on 2671963
On 1618 1J969 the declaration under section 6 was duly notified
On 1711972 a writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging the declaration
The High Court took notice of the Land Acquisi tion Amendment  Validation Act of 1967 but relying upon a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in Valji Mulji vs State held that the period of 5 12 years from the date of the preliminary notification was unreasonable delay for making of the declaration under section 6 of the Act
The validation provision came into force on 20th Janu ary 1967
Two judgments of this Court dealing with this aspect being Gujarat State Transport Corporation vs Valji Mulji Soneji  Ors  and State of Gujarat  Anr
vs Punjabai Nathubhai  Ors have now concluded the position with reference to the provisions of the Validation Act and on the ratio of these judgments the decision of the Gujarat High Court on which reliance was placed by the High Court in disposing of these matters cannot be sustained
We accordingly allow the appeals set aside the decision of the High Court and sustain the decla ration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 181
There shall be no order as to costs
GN Appeals allowed


Summary:
The Respondent firm imported from Japan metallised polyester films which were in the shape of film rolls several metres long
The goods were cleared on payment of customs duty as well as additional dutycountervailing duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act
Thereaf ter the Respondent firm moved three applications claiming refund of the additional duty of customs paid by it
The claim was made under the terms of a notification of exemp tion issued under section 251 of the Customs Act
Under notification No 22876 dated 281976 an exemption from the Customs Tariff Act was granted in respect of articles made of plastics all sort but excluding those specified in the Table annexed and failing under Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act
The Tribunal accepted the claim of refund made by the  Respondent
In so doing it relied on the decisions of the Madras High Court in Precise Impex P Ltd vs Collector  of the Calcutta High Court in Continental Marketing P Ltd vs Union and of the Bombay High Court in AV Jain vs Union WP 2136 of 1986 decided on 3011987
The Tribunal also referred to its earlier decision in Export India Corporation P Ltd vs Collector and Collector vs Fancy Dying and Printing Works Bombay
The Tribunal held that the goods imported by the Re spondent were articles made of plastics but they were films and thus not one of the Categories of articles mentioned in the Table
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the Collector of Customs has filed these appeals under section 130 EB of the  232 Before this Court the Department contended that the goods are sheets or foils or other rectangular or profile shape and hence liable to duty
The assesses  assertion is that the goods are films though specie of plastics articles yet they are different from any mentioned in the table
According to it even if they are treated only as thin sheets of plastic material they can be described only as sheetings and not sheets
On consideration of the rival contentions advanced by the parties and after making reference to the other relevant notifications granting exemption issued under rule 81 of the Central Excise Rules in respect of items falling under Item No 15A of the Central Excise Tariff Act this Court dismissing the appeals HELD Films made of plastic fall in a category of their own and do not fail within the categories of articles ex cepted by the Table
Film is a well known distinct and independent category of plastic article known to commerce
235A The Court agreed with the view of the Bombay High Court that though for certain purposes there is a distinction between films foils and sheets so far as the article presently in question is concerned it is recognised in trade only as film
238F The goods under consideration cannot be described either as foils or sheets
A film roll of indefinite length and not in the form of individual cut piece can be more appro priately described as sheetings rather than  sheets
238G 239A The expression other rectangular or profile shapes in the table is also not appropriate to bring in the items in question
For one thing the articles have a distinct name in the market as films and therefore they are outside the table
It will not be possible to accept the contention that articles which have a clear commercial identity as films should be brought within the wide and vague expression other rectangular or profile shapes because if the film is cut into small pieces each piece will be rectangular in shape
The items imported do not come in a rectangular shape they are imported as rolls of polyester films
They are not articles of rectangular shape
Nor would it be possible to treat them as of other profile shape
The Court was unable to attribute any precise meaning to the expression profile shape but it cannot be taken to be comprehensive enough to take in any shape whatever
If the expression rectangular or other profile shape in the table is given 233 such wide and unrestricted interpretation then practically any article of plastic can be brought within the meaning of one or other of the expressions used in the Table and thus the entire exemption can be altogether deprived of any content
The Court took the view that the articles are films and as this expression does not find specific mention in the table the assessee is entitled to exemption under the main part of the notification
239E H 240A