n that the products must contain visible pieces of bones and that the expression is limited only to the primary products obtained on crushing of bones such as bone sinew bone grist and bone meal
995C The ossein and gelatine manufactured by the respondent can without straining the expression used in the notification be described as bone products
996GI  CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 1420 of 1988
From the Order dated 13111987 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No 144183 C in Order No 91587 C MK Banerjee Solicitor General H Sharma Mrs Sushma Suri for the Appellant
Soli J Sorabjee AN Haksar
R Narain DN Misra and PK Ram for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN J
A very short question is involved in this appeal under section 35L of the Central Excises  Salt Act 1944
The respondent Ms Protein Products of lndia manufactures ossein and gelatine
It claimed exemption from excise duty under  notification of the Government of India dated 3061979
By this notification one more item was added to a list of items exempted from payment of excise duty under an earlier notification dated 1375
This item reads as follows Crushed bones and bone products  The respondent company manufactures the above products from bones
Ossein is prepared from bones by dissolving the PG NO 995 mineral part of the bones with phosphoric acid
From the ossein so obtained gelatine is obtained by treating the same further with an alkali
Although gelatine can also be manufactured from other sources such as pig skin and hides it is common ground that the respondent company was manufacturing gelatine only from bones
The Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT has taken the view that the products manufactured by the respondent company are bone products  and that the company is entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 30679 referred to earlier
The Tribunal pointed out that admittedly the raw material for the two products in question is crushed bones
It accepted the argument urged on behalf of the respondent company that the word product  only directed attention to the principal raw material from which the product in question is derived
Bone products  does not mean that the products must contain visible pieces of bones and that the expression is limited only to the primary products obtained on crushing of bones such as bone sinew bone grist and bone meal
Reference was made to the description of gelatine in the Indian Standard Specification as a purified product obtained by partial hydrolysis of collagen derived from skin white connective tissues and bones of animals and to a definition of gelatine in Chemical Process Industries  as derived by hydrolysis from collagen the white fibres of the connective tissues of the animal body
particularly in the skin Corium bones Ossein and tendons The Tribunal also referred to an earlier order wherein di calcium phosphate
obtained by treating with acid the mineral portions seperated from crushed bones had been held entitled to the benefit of the same notification treating it bone product 
The learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous
According to him the words bone products  should he read
along with words crushed bones  and therefore the exemption under the notification is only limited to primary products obtained on crushing of bones such as bone sinew bone grist and bone meal
He submitted that ossein and gelatine cannot be described as hone products because they could also be obtained from raw material other than bones such as pig skin and hides
What is essential according to him
is to consider whether the products in question retain the principal characteristics and physical properties of crushed bones
In other words the argument appears to be that only products obtained by a PG NO 996 physical processing of bones could be described as bone products but not products obtained by treating bones with chemicals or acids
We see no reason to limit the availability of the exemption under the notification in the manner contended for on behalf of the appellant
The terms of the notification only refer to two items crushed bones and bone products and there is no scope for applying any rule of ejusdem generis as contended for by the learned Solicitor General
There is also no justification for importing any limitation as to the nature of the products that are entitled to exemption
We see no logic or principle in holding that only products obtained by a physical treatment of bones such as crushing or powdering would be entitled to exemption and not products obtained by chemical treatment
It is true that gelatine may be produced not merely from bones but also other things such as the skin and tissues of animals
But as already mentioned it is not in dispute that only bones are the raw material from which the products manufactured by the respondent company are derived
It is not the case of the appellant that in the manufacture of gelatine or ossein other raw materials are also used to such an extent as to completely overshadow or render insignificant the utilisation of bones in the process
The products in question are derived merely by the extraction of the mineral parts of the bones
Gelatine is obtained by a further treatment with an alkali of the ossein manufactured from the bones
It is the collagen which forms the organic content of the bones that is utilised in the manufacture of ossein and gelatine
The word product  is defined in Webster s Comprehensive Dictionary as anything produced or obtained as a result of some operation or work
The expression bone products  therefore merely means anything produced or obtained from bones
Whether such derivation is by a simple physical process or by a chemical reaction would seem to make no difference to the end product
Buttermilk for instance does not cease to be a milk product merely because a chemical process is involved in the transformation
The ossein and gelatine manufactured by the respondent can without straining the expression used in the notification he described as bone products
We are therefore in agreement with the view taken by the tribunal that the products manufactured by the respondent company are entitled to the exemption under the notification dated 30679
We may also here usefully reiterate the observations made by us in Collector of Customs Bombay vs Swastic Woollen P Ltd  Ors
 JT with regard PG NO 997 to the parameters of interference by this Court in an appeal from the CEGAT
That case concerned the meaning of the expression wool waste and though those observations were made in the context of section 130E of the  they are of equal application the present context as well
We said In the new scheme of things the Tribunal have been entrusted with the authority and the jurisdiction to decide the questions involving determination of the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment
An appeal has 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 t30E of the Act though in relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of 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 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 clause b of section 130E of the Act   In the present case the Tribunal has taken into consideration all relevant factors and committed no error of principle or law
Even assuming that the terms of the exemption notification can also lend themselves to a narrower construction which may commend itself to another Tribunal or Court that alone can be no ground to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal
We therefore see no reason to entertain this appeal which will stand dismissed
SKA Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Article 191f of the Constitution is clearly intended to protect the freedom to acquire hold and dispose of property against State action other than in the legitimate exercise of its power to regulate private rights in the public interest
Similarly article S11 provides a safe guard against deprivation of property by the State except by procedure established by law
Violation of rights of property by private individuals is not within the purview of those articles
A person whose rights of property are infringed by a private individual must therefore seek his remedy under the ordinary law and not by way of an application under article 32