vil Appeal Nos
1016 25 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 19
1 1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal Nos
CDSB T 1776 1777 1797 to 1799 1800 1911 2263 2264 and 2265 of 1986 D in Order Nos
68 to 77 of 1987 D Kuldip Singh Additional Solicitor General Pramod Swarup and Mrs Sushma Suri for the Appellant
V Lakshmi Kumaran Madhava Rao V Krishnamurthy K Karanjawala Mrs M Karanjawala and Ms Indu Malhotra for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PG NO 372 SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
These appeals under section 130E of the hereinafter called the Act  arise from the decision of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi hereinafter called CEGAT 
Section 130Eb permits appeal to this Court from any order of the said Tribunal relating among other things to the date mansion of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment
The appeals are at the instance of the revenue authorities namely the Collector of Customs Bombay
The respondent No limporter is a company of small scale sector in Punjab and manufactures various kinds of yarns
It is stated that on 19th May 1984 the respondent No 1 imported consignment of wool materials valued at Rs375079 and claimed the benefits under Notification No 24076 cus
The respondent also claimed that the wool materials were wool waste hence the goods in question were not liable to customs duty
It is stated that on 6th November 1984 an Expert Committees comprised of Deputy Chief Chemist AssisTant Collector and Senior Scientific Officer was set up for the examination of the goods in question
The Expert Committee after examination opined that the wool goods were other than wool waste hence the goods were liable to duty of customs
On or about 2nd January 1985 the department issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why action under section Illd  m and section 112 of the and section 3 of the import and Export Central Act 1942 should not be taken against them
The respondents submitted the reply to the notice
The Additional Collector of Customs examined the whole case and adjudicated on 19th March 1986 and the respondents were charged with the violation of the import Control Regulations
The Additional Collector of Customs held that the classification of the goods should be under the heading 530105 and also found the import to be unauthorised
Accordingly the goods in question were confiscated but he gave option to the respondents to redeem the goods on payment of Rs90000 as fine
The respondent No limporter preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal New Delhi against the order of the Assistant Collector
Bombay and the Appellate Tribunal New Delhi after going through the provisions of the Act and the notification allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Collector on 19th January 1987
The question involved in these appeals before the CEGAT and the question involved herein in these appeals is whether these goods are wool wastes and as such entitled to the benefit of exemption under the aforesaid notification
As it is apparent from the Tribunal s order PG NO 373 the assessee or the dealer contends that these are wool wastes
The consignments were examined on percentage basis
On examination it was found however that these items contained long length of sliverstops etc
A thorough examination of these consignments was therefore ordered to verify the actual description of the goods
A technical panel was constituted for the purpose consisting of the Deputy Chief Chemist Bombay as Chairman the Assistant Collector of Customs and a Senior Scientific Officer of the Office of the Textile Committee as the members
Based on the panel s findings show cause notices were issued to the importers that the goods appeared to be other than wool wastes there were long lengths of sliverstops or deliberately broken tops which could be easily joined at the end to prepare them ready for spinning
The importers were charged with the violation of the Import Control Regulations and asked to explain why action should not be taken under sections 111d and m of the Act
and also why the goods should not be charged to duty under heading 5301 and now 5301051 of the Customs Tariff Schedule read with Customs Notification No 154 Cus dated 4th July 1979 at the rate of 40  auxiliary duty at 10  additional duty of customs at Rs9375 per kg
under item No 43 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule read with the relevant notification
As mentioned hereinbefore adjudication proceedings were held by the Additional Collector of Customs
Bombay
In the said adjudication proceeding the members of the technical panel were cross examined by counsel
The Additional Collector held that the goods were not wool waste but processed woollen products other than Wool topsraw wool and were classifiable under heading 530105 1
In other words he found that since the goods were found to be not wool wastes the licenses produced for wool waste were not acceptable and therefore
the imports were unauthorised
Accordingly the confiscation of the goods were ordered but option to redeem the goods on payment of fine was permitted
This order as mentioned hereinbefore was challenged before the CEGAT
The Tribunal noted the history of the case and addressed itself to the points at issue the question before the Tribunal was whether the goods were wool waste or processed woollen products other than wool topsraw wool
The revenue s case was that the goods could not be treated as wool wastes
lt may be reiterated that the goads were held to be not entitled to duty exemption under the relevant customs notificAtion in issue
The Tribunal went into the details of the report of the export panel
That report recognised that it was not possible to give opinion by visual observations of the material and that there was no PG NO 374 specification laid down for the same by the ISI or International Standard Organisations
The Tribunal noted that the question would have to be understood on the basis of trade understanding
We are of the opinion that when no statutory definition is provided in respect of an item in the or the Central Excises Act the trade understanding meaning thereby the understanding in the opinion of those who deal with the goods in question is the safest guide
See Union of India vs Delhi Cloth  General Mills  1963 Suppl 1 SCR 586 South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd etc
vs Union of lndia  Ors
   Dunlop lndia Ltd vs Union of lndia and Ors l976 2 SCR 98 in re Colgate Palmolive India Pvt Ltd l979 ELT 567 Commissioner of Sales tax UP vs Ms
SN Bros Kanpur  and also the famous observations of Justice Cameron in His Majesty The King vs Planters Nut and Chocolate Co Ltd 1951 CLR Ex 122
Dealing with the transactions in question the Tribunal noted that the goods in the present case had been indented and supplied as wool wastes
Attention of the Tribunal was also drawn to the explanatory notes to the Customs Cooperative Counsel Nomenclature for short CCCN which stated at page 738 that wool waste could be of different types arising at different stages on processing of wool and in spinning of wool that Iap and silver ends could comprise wool waste that these could be carded or combed wool waste and that wool wastes might be used for spinning
The Tribunal noted that nowhere had it been laid down that wool wastes comprising of pieces of sliver should not exceed 3 meters in length or that it should be packed in gunny bags and not in machine pressed bales
Some reliance was placed on a letter dated 5th July 1981 from SCS India Pvt Ltd to Deluxe Spinning Agency Bombay that lap and sliver broken pieces could comprise wool waste
Wool tops would have lengths ranging from 250 to 1166 meters
But in the peasant case the material was about 4 meters only
Some reliance was also placed on two letters to LWS from the Principal Scientific Officer Punjab Test House Ludhiana regarding the definition of wool tops and soft waste which was set out in the order of the Tribunal
It is not necessary for our present purpose to set out the definition in extenso
But this definition of materials disproved the revenue s contention that pieces of sliver as in this case of 4 or 5 meters length were directly spinnable and were not wool wastes
There was cross examination of the Deputy Chief Chemist and that cross examination also does not support the revenue s case
lt is true that the Additional Collector of Customs Bombay by his order dated 19th March 1986 had PG NO 375 rejected the defence put forth by the dealer and held that the goods were not wool wastes but were processed woollen products other than wool topsraw wool and were classifiable under heading 5301051 of the Customs Tariff Schedule
But the question is whether he was right in so doing
It appears that the goods varied in length from 4 meters and above
It also appears that the goods were found by the Committee to be cut pieces of slivers which were parallely laid homogeneous and of even thickness and that these were nothing but cut pieces of wool tops which could be considered to have arisen during the process of manufacture of yarn from wool tops in order to quality as soft waste viz small cut ends of wool topsslivers
It may be relevant in this connection to refer to the Board s Tariff Advice which suggested that wool wastes may consist of free fibres and clippings cuttings etc
These shouldd not consist of long lengths of yarn or of rovings or slivers
The Tribunal was of the view that rovings sliverstops of short lengths or ends alone could be considered as wool wastes
The wool contents of the present disputed consignments are more than 98 or completely wool and it is not mixed with any other wastes
The lengths of samples were not less than 3 meters but ranged between 3 to 30 meters or even more
lt was therefore urged that these could not be treated appropriately as wool wastes
The Tribunal however noted that the experts produced by the importers are said to have based their views on their experience no literature or evidence regarding accepted trade practice with regard to any technical literature has been produced
The experts had no occasion to see the goods in dispute
lt appeared before the Tribunal when the consignment was examined for the first time the customs staff reported that the goads could be considered as wool wastes
The expert panel s report was not unanimous The report did not say that the subject goods were the result of deliberate cutting of slivers
lt said that the fibres were of varying different lengths
But the majority report considered that the goods were not wastes apparently on the basis of the length of the fibres being above 3 meters
The term wool waste could cover slivers provided these were not deliberately cut and were not of uniform length
The evidence produced in support of the contention that slivers upto and even more than 5 meters in length could be considered as wastes was without justification ignored
The Tribunal noted all these
lt is clear that the goods comprised fibres of uniform length the result of deliberate cutting
That was the basis on which the Additional Collector proceeded but there was no evidence to that effect
After taking ail these factors and sub mission into consideration the Tribunal came to the conclusion that PG NO 376 these are classed as wool waste
The propriety and the validity of this finding are under challenge
Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has ignored vital material and relevant factors
He submitted that Technical Committee s report about the expression wool waste CCCN s observations and the Board s Tariff Advice had been ignored
We are unable to accept this criticism advanced on behalf of the revenue
The short question involved before the Tribunal and the validity of which is under challenge in these appeals is whether the goods in question are wool wastes or not
If these are then these are entitled to exemption under the relevant notification and if these are not wool wastes these are not entitled to exemption
The expression wool wastes is not defined in the relevant Act or in the notification
This expression is not an expression of article It may be understood as in most of financial measures where the expression are not defined not in a technical or any preconceived basis but on the basis of trade understanding of those who deal with these goods as mentioned hereinbefore
The Tribunal proceeded on that basis
The Tribunal has not ignored the Technical Committee s observations
We have noted in brief the Tribunal s handling of that report
The tribunal has neither ignored the observation of CCCN nor the Board s Tariff Advice
These observations have been examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case
One of the basic factual disputes was long length of sliver tops
Having regard to the long length we find that the Tribunal was not in error
Whether a particular item and the particular goods in this case are wool wastes
should be so considered or not is primarily and essentially a essentially a question of fact The decision on such a question of fact must be arrived at without ignoring the material and relevant facts and bearing in mind the correct legal principles
Judged by these yardsticks the finding of the Tribunal in this case is unassailable
We are however of the view that if a fact finding authority comes to a conclusion within the above parameters honestly and bona fide the fact that another authority be it the Supreme Court or the High Court may have a different perspective of that question in our opinion is no ground to interfere with that finding in an appeal from such a finding
In the new scheme of things the Tribunals have been entrusted with the authority and the jurisdiction to decide the questions involving determination of the rate of duty of excise or of the value of goods for purposes of assessment
An appeal has PG NO 377 been provided to this Court to over see that the subordinate Tribunals act within the law
Merely because another view might be possible by a competent Court of law is no ground for interference under section l30E of the Act though in relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value ot goods for purposes of assessment the amplitude of appeal is unlimited
But because the jurisdiction is unlimited there is inherent limitation imposed in such appeals
The Tribunal has not deviated from the path of correct principle and has considered all the relevant factors
If the Tribunal has acted bona fide with the natural justice by a speaking order in our opinion even if superior Court feels that another view is possible that is no ground for substitution of that view in exercise of power under the clause b of section l30E of the Act
In the facts and in the circumstances in our opinion the Tribunal has acted within jurisdiction
The Tribunal has taken all relevant and material facts into consideration
The Tribunal has not ignored any relevant and material facts
The Tribunal has not applied any wrong principles of law
Therefore the decision of the Tribunal is unassailable even in the appeal before this Court
In the premises the appeals preferred herein are rejected
No order as to costs
RSS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
 The writ petitioners herein challenge the order regularising the temporary service of promotees in the years 1972 73 1973 74 and 1974 75 to the cadre of Assistant Engineers Deputy Executive Engineers
They contend that the retrospective regularisation made by the Chief Engineer is without authority and in gross violation of the prescription of the Rules
Two sets of rules are operating side by side in the State of Andhra Pradesh the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules 1962 the other Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Service Rules 1967 promulgated with retrospective effect from April l 1965
Rule 31 of the latter rules provide for the method of recruitment of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment or by promotion or by transfer from Supervisor or Draughtsman Special Grade or Draughts man Special Grade I of the Andhra Pradesh RB Engineering Subordinate Service
Sub rule 3a of Rule 3 thereof prescribes that of the substantive vacancies of Assistant Engineers 37 12 shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 62 12 by transfer of Supervisors and Draughtsman and by promotion of Junior Engineers
Notwithstanding this there had been under recruitment of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment and the recruits through the other modes have come into the cadre far in excess of the limit provided by the rule and had been regularised
It has been contended that though five year qualifying service was 19 necessary in the lower service for entitlement to consideration for promotion as Assistant Engineer the period had been reduced to three years to enable larger recruitment from the alternate sources to the prejudice of direct recruits
Disposing of the writ petitions this Court  HELD 1
There is no justification at all for the State Government not to work out the provision viz filling up by direct recruitment 3712 of the substantive vacancies
The direct recruits have been agitating from 1982 over their rights arising out of this rule and the Tribunal has called upon the State to work out the said Rule properly
Reopening the question of inter se seniority on the basis of the rules from the beginning may create hardship but the benefit of the scheme under the Rules should be made available to direct recruits at least from 1982
22D F 12 The State Government must ascertain the exact substantive vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers in service
On the basis that 3712 of such vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment the position should be worked out
Promotees should be confined to 62 12 of the substantive vacancies and in regard to 37 12 of the vacancies the shortfall should be filled up by direct recruitment
Even if promotees are placed in those posts reserved for direct recruits no seniority shall be counted
22F H 13 Regularisation made in respect of the promotees of the years 1972 to 1975 should not be disturbed as the regularisation has been subsequent to the actual commencement of continuous service in the post of Assistant Engineer
23C The State Government has been directed to ascertain the number of vacancies upto 311287 to be filled up by direct recruitment and to take steps to make direct recruitment to fill such posts within four months and also to draw the seniority list by the end of September 1988 22H 23A B