Summarize the following court judgment. vl Appeal Nos. 17 and 18 of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.1988 of the Customs	 Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal	 New Delhi in Appeal Nos. E/2 123 of 1987 C and E/2 124 of 1987 C in Order Nos. 738 and 739 of 1988 C	 K. Parasaran	 V. Balachandran and M.V. Madhava Rao for the Appellant. Ashok H. Desai	 Solicitor General	 Ms. Indu Malhotra and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondents. These are two appeals under section 35 L of the (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') They arise out of the claim of M/s Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee ') for partial exemption from excise duty in respect of the art paper and chromo paper manufactured by it. The assessee is having a factory at Khadki in which different varieties of paper and paper boards are manufac tured. The factory does not have a bamboo pulp plant. It uses waste paper and cereal straw which are considered to be unconventional raw materials for the manufacture of paper and paper board. The pulp used by the assessee contains more than 50% by weight of pulp made from these unconventional raw materials. 'Paper and paper board ' are goods falling under item 17(1) of the first schedule to the Act. Two notifications were issued on 1st March	 1984 under rule 8(1) of the Cen tral Excises Rules	 1944 in respect of the above item. The first of them	 being notification No. 24 of 1984	 restricted the excise duty on items falling under the aforesaid item in the manner following: 802 section No. Description Rate 1. Printing and writing paper. Ten per cent ad valorem paper plus one thousand rupees per metric tonnes. All sorts of paper commonly Ten per cent ad valorem known as kraft paper (inclu plus one thousand three ding paper and paper boards hundred and eighty five of the type known as kraft rupees per metric tonne. liner or corrugating medium) of a substance equal to or exceeding 65 grammes per sq. metre 3. Paper board of the following Ten per cent ad valorem varieties	 namely	 pulp board plus one thousand eight duplex board and triplex board. hundred and ten rupees per metric tonne. Paper and paper boards	 other Ten per cent ad valorem than those specified in S.Nos. plus one thousand four 1 to 3. hundred and thirty rupees per metric tonne. The second notification	 notification No. 25 of 1984	 is the one with which we are directly concerned here. It pro vides for a concession in respect of paper and paper boards falling under item 17(1) of the Schedule	 manufactured out of pulp containing not less than 50 per cent by weight of pulp made from materials (other than bamboo	 hardwoods	 softwoods	 reeds or rags) and cleared on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year. The concessional rates prescribed were as below: section No. Description Rate Conditions 1. (i) Printing and wri Rs.450 per provided that the ting paper metric tonne total quantity of clearances	 if any	 of all vari (ii) All sorts of paper Rs.450 per eties of paper and commonly known as metric tonne paper boards in the kraft paper (inclu preceding financial ding paper & paper year	 by or on be boards of the type half of a manufac known as kraft liners turer	 from one or or corrugating medium) more factories	 or of a substance equal to from a factory by or exceeding 65 grammes or on behalf of one per square metre. or more manufactu rers did not exce ed 3	000 metric tonnes. 803 (iii) Others Rs.560 per metric tonne. (i) Printing and writing Rs.730 per Provided that the writing paper metric tonne. total quantity of clearances of all varieties of paper (ii) All sorts of papers Rs.730 per & paper boards in commonly known as metric tonne. the preceding fin kraft paper (including ancial year	 by or paper and paper boards on behalf of a ma of the type known as nufacture	 from kraft liners or corru one or more facto gating medium) of a ries or from a substance equal to or factory by or on exceeding 65 grammes behalf of one or per square metre. more manufacturers 	 exceedings 3	000 metric tonnes but did not exceed 7	500 metric ton nes. (iii) Others Rs.900 per metric tonne. (i) Printing and Rs.900 per Provided that the writing paper metric tonne. total quantity of clearances of all (ii) All sorts of Rs.900 per varieties of paper paper common metric tonne. & paper boards in ly known as the preceding fin Kraft paper & nancial year	 by (including pa or on behalf of a per & paper manufacturer	 from boards of the one or more facto type known as kraft ries or from a fa liners or corruga ctory or on behalf ting medium) of a of one or more substance equal to manufacturers	 ex or exceeding 65 gram ceeding 7	500 met mes per square metre. tric tonne but did not exceed 16	500 metric tonnes: (iii) Others Rs.1.120 per metric tonne. 804 4. [This para	 added by notification No. 92/84 dated 18.4.84 added another concessional rate where the clearances exceed ed 10	500 but did not exceed 24	000 metric tonnes on the same lines as above but this does not need to be set out here]" The grant of the above concessional rates were	 however	 subject to certain important conditions set out in the provisoes to the notification. These provisoes read: "Provided that the factory does not have a plant attached thereto for making bamboo or wood pulp. Provided further that the exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to cigarette tissue	 glassing paper	 grease proof paper	 coated paper (including waxed paper) and paper of a substance not exceeding 25 grammes per square metre. " Another notification No. 45 of 1985 dated 17.3.1985 has been relied upon in support of the contention of the Union of India and hence this may also be set out here. It pre scribed rates on paper and paper board falling under item 17(1) in the following manner: section No. Description Rate 1. Printing and writing paper (i) coated paper Ten percent ad valorem plus one thousand five hundred and five rupees per metric tonne. (ii) of a substance not ex Ten percent ad valorem ceeding 25 grammes per plus one thousand five square metre hundred and five rupees per metric tonne. (iii) Others Ten percent ad valorem plus one thousand five hundred and five rupees per metric tonne. All sorts of paper com Ten percent ad valorem monly known as kraft plus one thousand five paper (including paper hundred and eighty five and paper boards of the rupees per metric type known as kraft liner tonne. or corrugating medium) of a substance equal to or exceeding 65 grammes per square metre. 805 3. Coated paper (including Ten percent ad valorem waxed paper) and paper of plus one thousand nine a substance not exceeding hundred and thirty 25 grammes per square rupees per metric metre (other than those tonne. specified in Sl. No.1) 4. Glassine paper	 cigarette Ten percent ad valorem tissue and grease proof plus one thousand nine paper. hundred and thirty rupees per metric tonne 5. Paper board of the follow Ten percent ad valorem ing varieties	 namely	 pulp plus one thousand eight board	 duplex board and hundred and ten rupees triplex board. per metric tonne. Paper and boards	 other Ten percent ad valorem than those specified in plus one thousand four Sl. No.1 to 5. hundred and thirty rupees per metric tonne The assessee seems initially to have paid excise duty on the goods manufactured by it in terms of notification No. 24/84 but later seems to have thought of claiming the con cessional rates prescribed by notification No. 25/84. The company was manufacturing art paper and chromo paper. It is common ground that these two types of paper fall under category "printing and writing paper". It is also common ground that these two articles also fall under the descrip tion "coated paper" used in the second proviso. Since coated paper is taken by the proviso out of the purview of the notification No. 25 of 1984	 the Excise Department refused to permit the assessee to avail of this concession in re spect of its manufactured goods. This treatment by the Excise Department has also been confirmed by the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The Tribunal disposed of the matter very briefly. It observed: 806 "37. That brings us to the second question whether art paper and chromo paper were eligible for the exemption granted under notification No. 25 of 1984. We have carefully consid ered arguments of the appellants. We have perused the noti fication No. 24 of 1984 as amended and note that the second proviso excludes from the exemption	 among others	 coated paper (including waxed paper). There is no denial that art paper and chromo paper are coated papers. It may be correct that these are not	 like other papers mentioned in second proviso	 industrial varieties of papers and are writing and printing varieties. All the same when the proviso	 as it is worded	 is clear there is no warrant for us to supply words to the proviso to the notification. We	 therefore	 find against the appellants in this regard and hold that art and chromo paper would not be eligible for exemption under notification No. 25 of 1984." (emphasis added) The assessee is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal and hence the present appeals. Sri K. Parasaran	 appearing for the appellant	 raises an ingenious contention. He urges that though the expression 'coated paper ' has generally a wide connotation and includes coated papers of all varieties	 it should be given a re stricted meaning in the context in which it appears in the proviso. It is submitted that in the paper business	 paper is broadly of two varieties	 "industrial paper" and "cultur al paper". Paper used for printing or writing is treated as cultural paper. On the other hand	 industrial paper is paper which is used for various purposes which may be broadly described as industrial purposes	 such as wrapping	 packing sanitary use and the like. It is submitted that though the notification intended to grant a concession. to small facto ries manufacturing paper out of unconventional raw material. it was decided to deny the concession to certain kinds of paper. These exceptions have been set out in the proviso. They are: (1) cigarette tissue	 (2) glassing paper	 (3)grease proof paper	 (4) coated paper (including waxed paper)	 and (5) paper of substance not exceeding 25 gm. per square metre in weight (which may be compendiously described as light paper). It is argued that a common strain runs through all these five categories. The first three varie ties	 namely	 cigarette tissue	 glassing paper and grease proof paper admittedly fall under the category of industrial paper. Likewise	 paper of a substance not exceeding 25 gm. per square metre in weight is invariably used for 807 industrial purposes and this is so found by the Tribunal. The word 'coated paper '	 it is urged	 must be read in this context. Since the other items set out in the proviso are items of industrial paper	 it stands to reason that though 'coated paper '	 in a wider sense	 may include all categories of coated paper	 the denial of concession by the proviso is to be restricted only to coated paper falling under the industrial variety. In other words	 it is submitted that the word 'coated paper ' should be interpreted by applying the principle of "Noscitur A Sociis" or on the analogy of the "Ejusdem generis" principle. This contention	 it is submit ted	 is re inforced by two considerations. The first is that the Government must have had some idea or principle in putting together the exceptions and there is no conveivable principle other than the one enunciated. The second consid eration is the addition of the words used in parenthesis along with 'coated paper ' viz. "(including waxed paper)". It is pointed out that waxed paper obviously means coated paper because waxed paper is nothing but paper coated with wax and would have anyhow been covered by the exception. Neverthe less	 it was considered necessary	 it is said	 to specifi cally include it in order to make it clear by this illustra tion that only industrial paper like waxed paper is taken out from the concession. The words in parenthesis are	 in other words	 the words illustrative of the limitation to be read into the expression 'coated paper '. It is finally argued that	 even if the words of the proviso are capable of being construed in a wider manner so as to deny exemption to all kinds of coated paper	 the Court should apply the well established principle of construction of taxing statutes that an ambiguous provision should be interpreted in favour of the subject. On the other hand	 the learned Solicitor General submits that if there are two possible views of the proviso	 the Court should not interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal which reflects one of two possible and plausi ble views. On the interpretation of the proviso	 the Solici tor General submits that there is no principle of interpre tation by which the plain and natural meaning of the word 'coated paper ' can be abridged nor	 he says	 is there any thing in the context to warrant such a limitation. He re futes the suggestion that	 in commercial parlance	 there is a clear cut distinction between industrial and cultural paper. He does not agree that light paper can only be indus trial paper and refers to the terms of the 1985 notification in support. He points out that if coated paper meant only industrial paper	 as contended for by the assessee	 the expression in parenthesis was totally unnecessary. He submits that there is a distinction between coated paper and impregnated paper. As waxed paper could fall under 808 either of these categories	 there was a possibility of some one contending that paper impregnated with wax is not 'coated paper '; that is why it became necessary to add the parenthesis to clarify that both kinds will be 'coated paper ' for the purposes of the proviso. He submits for these reasons that the view taken by the Tribunal was the correct one and that the appeals should be dismissed. We have considered the contentions urged on both sides and we have come to the conclusion that there is force in the appellant 's contentions. All the three notifications we have extracted above draw a distinction between printing and writing paper on the one hand and other types of paper on the other. They also show that the duty on printing and writing paper is generally less than that on the other varieties of paper. Though paper can be classified into various varieties	 it does appear that one such classifica tion is between industrial paper and cultural paper. "The Dictionary of Paper" published by the American Paper and Pulp Association (Second Edition) contains the following definition: Industrial Papers A very general term which is used for to indicate papers manufactured for industrial uses as opposed to those for cultural purposes. Thus	 building papers	 insulative papers	 matching paper etc. would be considered industrial papers whereas writing and printing papers would be cultural papers. Now the proviso denies the concession extended by notifica tion No. 25/84 to certain types of papers. It is true that no meticulous reasons can always be made available or dis covered for variations in rates of duty as between various types of goods and the absence of some common thread in relation to a set of goods treated alike may not necessarily render the classification irrational or arbitrary. But	 at the same time	 one can legitimately postulate that the denial of a concession to a group proceeds on the basis of some aspect or feature common to all items in the group. If such a principle can be conceived of which would rationalise the inclusion of all the items	 it would be quite reasonable and proper to give effect to a construction of the notifica tion as will accord with that principle. It is this which the appellant has attempted to do and we are reclined to think that the ratiocination of the exceptions suggested	 far from being artificial or far fetched	 is a plausible and likely one that the Government could have had in mind and that it should be accepted. 809 As mentioned earlier	 the concession of the notification is denied to five kinds of paper. Three of them	 undoubtedly and indisputably	 are varieties of industrial paper. This is indeed common ground and it has also been supported by reference to the definitions in the Dictionary of Paper and elsewhere which it is unnecessary to set out here. The fourth is what we have referred to as 'light paper ' not exceeding a particular weight. On behalf of the assessee	 it is contended that this is also only industrial paper. In support of this contention	 reference is invited to the tables appended to the Dictionary of Paper which indicate that there cannot be printing and writing paper of weight less than 26 gms per sq. metre. It is also pointed out that the Tribunal has also given a finding to this effect in para 37 of its order. The learned Solicitor General	 on the other hand	 points out that section No. 1 (ii) of the 1985 notification itself clearly shows that there can be "printing and writing paper of a substance not exceeding 25 gramms per sq. metre". On behalf of the assessee	 on instructions	 it is submitted that this classification proceeds on a totally unreal basis and that there is no such printing and writing paper in existence. We cannot	 however	 assume that the 1985 notifi cation proceeds on an erroneous basis. 1t is sufficient for our purposes to take it	 on the basis of the record in this case	 that light paper is	 by and large	 industrial paper without altogether excluding all possibility that it is used occasionally for cultural purposes also. The classification set out in the 1985 notifications also lends some support to the contentions urged. The five varieties of paper we are concerned with are found in serial Nos. 3 and 4 of this notification and serial Nos. 1 and 3 reflect a contrast between coated paper and light paper used for cultural purposes (item No. 1) and that used for other (industrial) purposes (item No. 4). On this basis	 then	 it is clear that tour out of the five varieties of paper which are denied the benefit of the concession seem to constitute industrial paper. In fact even if	 as urged for the Union of India	 only three of ' these items are of the industrial variety while the other two could be either	 it will not still be unreasonable (though	 may be	 a little less plausible) to draw an inference that only industrial paper failing in those two categories are intended to be comprehended in the classification rather than assume	 for no detectable reason	 that all paper of these two varieties alone are excluded from the concession. We think	 therefore	 that the appel lants are on firm ground in submitting that the expression 'coated paper ' in the proviso should draw colour from the context in which it is employed and receive an interpreta tion consistent therewith than its literal one	 which in its widest sense	 may be comprehensive enough to include all coated paper	 industrial or otherwise. 810 The principle of statutory interpretation by which a generic word receives a limited interpretation by reason of its context is well established. In the context with which we are concerned	 we can legitimately draw upon the "nosci tur a sociis" principle. This expression simply means that "the meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps. " Gajendragadkar	 J. explained the scope of the rule in State vs Hospital Mazdoor Sabha	 ; in the following words: "This rule	 according to Maxwell	 means that	 when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take as it were their colour from each other	 that is	 the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. The same rule is thus inter preted in "Words and Phrases" (Vo. XIV	 p. 207): "Associated words take their meaning from one another under the doctrine of nosciture a sociis	 the philosophy of which is that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is broader than the maxim Ejusdem Generis. " In fact the letter maxim "is only an illustration or specific application of the broader maxim noscitur a sociis". The argument is that certain essential features or attributes are invariably associated with the words "business and trade" as understood in the popular and conventional sense	 and it is the colour of these attributes which is taken by the other words used in the definition though their normal import may be much wider. We are not impressed by this argument. It must be borne in mind that noscitur a sociis is merely a rule of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where it is clear that the wider words have been deliberately used in order to make the scope of the defined word correspondingly wider. It is only where the intention of the Legislature in associating wider words with words of narrower significance is doubtful	 or otherwise not clear that the present rule of construction can be usefully applied. It can also be applied where the meaning of the words of wider import is doubtful; but	 where the object of the Legislature in using wider words is clear and free of ambiguity	 the rule of construc tion in question cannot be pressed into service. " 811 This principle has been applied in a number of contexts in judicial decisions where the Court is clear in its mind that the larger meaning of the word in question could not have been intended in the context in which it has been used. The cases are too numerous to need discussion here. It should be sufficient to refer to one of them by way of illustration. In Rainbow Steels Ltd. vs C.S.T.	 ; this Court had to understand the meaning of the word 'old ' in the context of an entry in a taxing tariff which read thus: "Old	 discarded	 unserviceable or absolute machinery	 stores or vehicles including waste products . . " Though the tariff item started with the use of the wide word 'old '	 the Court came to the conclusion that "in order to fall within the expression 'old machinery ' occurring in the entry	 the machinery must be old machinery in the sense that it has become non functional or nonusable". In other words	 not the mere age of the machinery	 which would be relevant in the wider sense	 but the condition of the machinery analogous to that indicated by the words following it	 was considered relevant for the purposes of the statute. The maxim of noscitur a sociis has been described by Diplock	 C.J. as a "treacherous one unless one knows "the socictas to which the socii belong" (vide: Letang vs Coopex	 ; The learned Solicitor General also warns that one should not be carried away by labels and Latin maxims when the word to be interpreted is clear and has a wide meaning. We entirely agree that these maxims and prece dents are not to be mechanically applied; they are of as sistance only in so far as they furnish guidance by compen diously summing up principles based on rules of common sense and logic. As explained in Collector of Central Excise vs Parle Exports (P) Ltd.; 	 at p. 357 and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs C.C.E.; 	 at p. 545 6 in interpreting the scope of any notification	 the Court has first to keep in mind the object and purpose of the notifi cation. All parts of it should be read harmoniously in aid of	 and not in derogation	 of that purpose. In this case	 the aim and object of the notification is to grant a conces sion to small scale factories which manufacture paper with unconventional raw materials. The question naturally arises: Could there have been any particular object intended to be achieved by introducing the exceptions set out in the provi so? Instead of proceeding on the premise that it is not necessary to look for any reason in a taxing statute	 it is necessary to have a closer look at the wording of the provi so. If the proviso had referred only to 'coated paper '	 no special object or 812 purpose would have been discernible and perhaps there would have been no justification to look beyond it and enter into a speculation as to why the notification should have thought of exempting only 'coated paper ' manufactured by these factories from the purview of the exemption. But the notifi cation excepts not one but a group of items. If the items mentioned in the group were totally dissimilar and it were impossible to see any common thread running through them again	 it may be permissible to give the exceptions their widest latitude. But when tour of them undoubtedly	 at least three of them can be brought under an intelligible classification and it is also conceivable that the Govern ment might well have thought that these small scale facto ries should not be eligible for the concession contemplated by the notification where they manufacture paper catering to industrial purposes	 there is a purpose in the limitation prescribed and there is no reason why the rationally logical restriction should not be placed on the proviso based on this classification. In our view	 the only reason . able way of interpreting the proviso is by understanding the words 'coated paper ' in a narrower sense consistent with the other expressions used therein. In the view we have taken it is unnecessary to consider the other contentions urged before us: (i) whether the words "(including waxed paper)" are words indicative of the limi tation sought to be placed on the words "coated paper" or they are only intended to make it clear that even paper impregnated with wax will not be entitled to exemption; and (ii) whether	 if the notification is capable of two equally plausible interpretations	 the one in favour of the subject should be upheld or the one taken by the Tribunal should be confirmed. For the reasons discussed above	 we accept the appel lant 's submission that 'coated paper ' in the second proviso refers	only to coated paper used for industrial purposes and not to coated varieties of printing and writing paper. The Tribunal 's order is set aside and the appellant held enti tled to the concessional rates specified in notification No. 25184. The appeals are allowed. But we make no order as to costs.

Notifications No. 24 and 25 of 1984 under rule (1) of the Central Excise Rules	 were issued on 1.3.1984 in respect of paper and paper board falling under item 17(1) of the first schedule to the . While notification No. 24 of 1984 restricted the excise duty on certain items	 notification No. 25 of 1984 provided for a concession in respect of paper and paper boards manufactured out of pulp containing not less than 50 per cent by weight of pulp made from materials (other than bamboo	 hardwoods	 softwoods	 reeds or rags) and cleared on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year	 subject to certain important conditions set out in the provisoes to the notifi cation. Under the provisoes	 the concessional rates were applicable only if the factory did not have plant attached to it for making bamboo	 wood pulp and the exemption would not apply to cigarette tissue	 glassing paper	 grease proof paper	 coated paper (including waxed paper) and paper of a substance not exceeding 25 grammes per square metre. Another notification No. 45 of 1985 dated 17.3.1985 was also issued prescribing rates on paper and paper board failing under the aforesaid item including coated paper. The appellant assessee had a factory in which different varieties of paper and paper board were being manufactured	 using waste paper and cereal straw containing more than 50 per cent by weight of pulp made from the unconventional raw materials. The factory did not have a bamboo pulp plant. The assessee was manufacturing art paper and chromo paper. These two types of paper generally fell under catego ry of printing and writing paper. These two articles also fell under the description coated 798 paper used in the second proviso to the notification No. 25 of 1984. The appellant initially paid excise duty on the goods manufactured by it in terms of notification No. 24 of 1984	 but later claimed concessional rates prescribed by notification No. 25 of 1984. Since coated paper was taken out of the purview of notification No. 25 of 1984	 by the proviso	 the Excise Department refused to permit the asses see to avail of this concession in respect of its manufac tured goods. This was confirmed by the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal before this Court	 on behalf of the appel lantassessee it was contended that though the expression 'coated paper ' had generally a wide connotation and included coated papers of all varieties	 it should be given a re stricted meaning in the context in which it appeared in the proviso	 that in the paper business	 paper was broadly two varieties	 "industrial paper" and "cultural paper"	 that while paper used for printing or writing was treated as cultural paper that used for various purposes	 broadly described as industrial purposes	 such as wrapping	 packing	 sanitary use and the like	 was industrial paper	 that since a common strain ran through all the five categories men tioned in the proviso	 inasmuch the first three varieties	 admittedly fell under the category of industrial paper and the last one was invariably used for industrial purposes	 and so found by the Tribunal	 the word 'coated paper '	 must be read in that context	 and should be interpreted by apply ing the principle of "Noscitur A Sociis" or on the analogy of the "Ejusdem generis" principle and that even if the words of the proviso were capable of being construed in a wider manner so as to deny exemption to all kinds of coated paper	 the Court should apply the well established principle of construction of taxing statutes that an ambiguous provi sion should be interpreted in favour of the subject. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that there was no principle of interpretation by which the plain and natural meaning of the word 'coated paper ' could be abridged nor was there anything in the context to warrant such a limitation	 that there was no 'clear cut distinction between industrial and cultural paper	 and that it could not be said that light paper could only be industrial paper. Allowing the appeals	 this Court	 HELD: 1. 'Coated paper ' in the second proviso to notifi cation No. 25 of 1984 refers only to coated paper used for industrial purposes and not to coated varieties of printing and writing paper. The 799 appellant is	 therefore	 entitled to concessional rates specified in the notification. [812F G] 2.1 The expression 'coated paper ' in the proviso should draw colour from the context in which it is employed and receive an interpretation consistent therewith than its literal one	 which in its widest sense	 may be comprehensive enough to include all coated paper	 industrial or otherwise	 [809G H] 2.2 The concession of the notification is denied to five kinds of paper. Three of them are varieties of industrial paper. The fourth is light paper	 not exceeding a particular weight. Light paper is by and large industrial paper and is also used occasionally for cultural purposes also. The five varieties of paper are found in serial Nos. 3 and 4 of the 1985 notification and serial Nos. 1 and 3	 reflect a con trast between coated paper and light paper used for cultural purposes (item No. 1) and that used for other (industrial) purposes (item No. 3). On this basis	 it is clear that four out of the five varieties of paper which are denied the benefit of the concession constitute industrial paper. In fact	 even if	 only three of these items are of the indus trial variety	 while the other two could be either	 it will not still be unreasonably (though may be	 a little less plausible) to draw an inference that only industrial paper falling in those two categories are intended to be compre hended in the classification rather than assume	 for no detectable reason	 that all paper of these two varieties alone are excluded from the concession	 [809E G] 2.3 Though no meticulous reasons can always be made available or discovered for variations in rates of duty as between various types of goods and the absence of some common thread ' in relation to a set of goods treated alike may not necessarily render the classification irrational or arbitrary	 it can legitimately be postulated that the denial of a concession to a group proceeds on the basis of some aspect or feature common to all items in the group. If such a principle can be conceived of which would rationalise the inclusion of all the items	 it would be quite reasonable and proper to give effect to a construction of the notification as will accord with that principle. [808F G] 2.4 In interpreting the scope of any notification	 the Court has first to keep in mind the object and purpose of the notification. All parts of it should be read harmonious ly in aid of	 and not in derogation	 of that purpose. [811F] 800 Collector of Central Excise vs Parle Exports (P) Ltd.	 ; and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs C.C.E.; 	 	 referred to. In the instant case	 the aim and object of the notifica tion is to grant a concession to small scale factories which manufacture paper with unconventional raw materials. If the proviso had referred only to coated paper no special object or purpose would have been discernible and perhaps there would have been no justification to look beyond it and enter into a speculation as to why the notification should have thought of exempting only coated paper manufactured by these factories from the purview of the exemption. But the notifi cation excepts not one but a group of items. If the items mentioned in the group were totally dissimilar and it were impossible to see any common thread running through them	 again	 it may be permissible to give the exceptions their widest latitude. But when four of them undoubtedly	 at least three of them can be brought under an intelligible classifi cation and it is also conceivable that the Government might well have thought that these small scale factories should not be eligible for the concession contemplated by the notification where they manufacture paper catering to indus trial purposes	 there is a purpose in the limitation pre scribed and there is no reason why the rationally logical restriction should not be placed on the proviso based on this classification. [811H; 812A C] The only reasonable way of interpreting the proviso is by understanding the words 'coated paper ' in a narrower sense consistent with the other expressions used therein. [812D] 3. The principle of statutory interpretation by which a generic word receives a limited interpretation by reason of its context is well established. The expression noscitur a sociis simply means that the meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps [810A B] In the context of the instant case	 this principle can be legitimately drawn upon. However	 the latin maxims and precedents are not to be mechanically applied; they are of assistance only in so far as they furnish guidance by com pendiously summing up principles based on rules of common sense and logic. [811E F] State vs Hospital Mazdoor Sabha	 ; ; Rainbow steels Ltd. vs C.S.T.; 	 and Lethang vs Coopex	 ; 	 referred to. 801 "The Dictionary of Paper" published by the American Paper and Pulp Association (Second Edition)	 referred to.