Case: Commnr. Of Customs, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd

2. On the factual score it appears that the respondent imported certain printed drawings, designs and plans under an agreement for transfer of technology for the purpose of setting up a plant to manufacture Polyester, Polyester Filament Yarn and Polyester Staple Fibre: whereas the assessee contended that the goods so imported are covered under Sl. No. 10 of the Notification No. 25/95 cus dated 16.3.1995 having ‘Nil? rate of duty: The Revenue contended that the goods fall under Sl. No. 15 of the notification attracting 10 per cent ad valorem. Before proceeding further with the matter the variable rate of duty chargeable as appears from the table in the Exemption Notification and in particular Sl. Nos. 10 and 15 thereof are noted hereinbelow :  TABLE  S. No.Chapter or heading No. or sub- heading No.Description of goodsRateConditions  (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10.49Printed books (including covers for printed books)and printed manuals including those in loose-leaf form with binder.Nil—  15.40.06 and 49.11Plans, drawings and designs10% ad valorem—  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    3. The factual score further depicts that by reason of the classification of the goods in question by the revenue authorities as falling under Chapter 49.11, the goods imported were valued at DM 32,66,900.00 equivalent to Rs. 7,50,61,438.00 for the purpose of duty thereon. The Commissioner of Customs however took the view that by reason of non-payment of duty as presented in the Table as above, the goods are liable to be confiscated and since the same were not available for such confiscation, he imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the importer under Section 112 of the Customs Act and further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each on three of the Directors of the Company being the importer herein and hence the appeal before the Tribunal (CEGAT). The Tribunal, however, on a detailed judgment came to the conclusion that the materials imported by the appellant are books coming under Tariff item 49.01 and thus coming within the ambit of Sl. No. 10 of the Exemption Notification by reason wherefor question of levy or payment of any duty for the same would not arise as for the articles so imported rate of duty was ‘Nil? in terms of the Exemption Notification. The order of the Commissioner of Customs thus stood reversed in its entirety including that of the penalties imposed and hence the appeal by way of a special leave petition by Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and the subsequent grant of leave by this Court.  4. Incidentally, in view of certain conflicting decisions of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and the latter upon consideration of the relevant facts and materials on record, came to the conclusion as regards entitlement of the assessee under the exemption notification as detailed above.  5. Significantly, in this appeal, we have to decipher the true intent and meaning of the words ?printed books? and ?manuals? as covered under Serial No. 10 as also `plan?, `drawing? and `designs? as covered under Serial No. 15 of the concerned notification.

Reasoning: 18. In any event, one of the basic cannon of interpretation of statute is that the Legislature intends to ascribe the ordinary common parlance and meaning to the words used therein. In the matter under consideration, the Legislature has used the word ‘printed books? and clarified it by inclusion of covers — the intent thus seems to be rather obvious to mean books in ordinary sense and not any other meaning. The Legislature has also included ‘printed manuals? and explained it by express words ?including those in the loose leaf form with binder?. Can the articles imported be termed to be ‘printed manuals? in ‘loose leaf form with binder?, unfortunately, the answer cannot be in the affirmative. It contains specifications in terms of a technology transfer agreement, it is not a collection of various articles in trade journals but a definite importation of technology transfer which obviously was not intended to mean by the user of the word ‘manual?. The word ‘manual? means and implies ‘a small book for handy use and includes a reference book, a hand-book as also a text book (vide Concise Oxford Dictionary) and on attribution of the same meaning, the words used by the Legislature cannot identify to be a product of technology transfer between two countries. Ordinary common parlance ought to be attributed for the expressions used by the Legislature and on attribution thereof one cannot possibly come to a conclusion that the exemption notification ever aimed at extending the meaning to the extent as has been effected by the Tribunal. The decision of this Court in Scientific Engineering (supra), has been totally misread and misapplied in the contextual facts — Scientific Engineering (supra), on the contrary lends all possible credence to the contentions as propagated by the appellants and not the respondents. The decisions of this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petrol Chemicals, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 13 (SC) and H.C.L. Limited v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 405 (SC), do not in any way lend any support to the contentions of the respondent herein by reason of the special fact situation as above and in any event we are not concerned with two notifications, one of which confers benefit on to the assessee. Thus reliance thereon is totally misplaced in the facts of the matter under consideration.