Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 390 of 1979. From the Order dated 14.2.1978 of the Central Govt. at New Delhi in Revision Petition No. MB/133/77. Anil B. Dewan	 S.K. Dholakia	 P.C. Kapur and P. Nara simhan for the Appellants. Kapil Sibbal	 Additional Solicitor General (NP)	 Ms. Nisha Bagchi. Ms. Sushma Suri and C.V.S. Rao for the Re spondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN	 J. All these appeals involve a common ques tion as to whether the goods exported by the appellants are liable to export duty. There are 67 appeals which relate to various batches of exports made by the appellants during the period from 4.3.76 to 14.2.82. They will be disposed of by this Common order. The goods exported by the appellants are blanched	 roasted and salted peanuts packed in vacuum containers. The appellants purchase groundnuts without shell in raw form various parts of Saurashtra in the State of Gujarat. There after	 they are sorted out into different sizes small	 medium and big. The medium and small sizes are separated. Dust and husk are cleaned out and other foreign material removed. The commodity then goes to a dry roaster where it is roasted at a 144 temperature of 150 deg. This results in reduction of the moisture and destruction of enzymes to a considerable ex tent. It is also stated that by this process any fungus or aflotoxin is removed. After dry roasting	 the product is cooled down with the aid of a blower so that the skin of the groundnuts become loose and the groundnut contracts. There after	 it goes through automatic blanching machines. This separates the skin of the groundnut and on removal of the skin it becomes white. Thereafter	 the seeds are put on running tables and picked	 according to uniform sizes	 with the aid of an electric eye sorter. The commodity thereafter goes to a frying section for being subjected to deep oil bath frying in an automatic fryer. They are then subjected to anti oxident chemicals and thereafter sent through the blower for being cooled down. The extra oil is sucked out. They are then subjected to a glazing process and are given permeated chemicals and salt treatment and are packed in packets and tins. The goods thus exported by the appellants are charged to duty under item 13 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act 1934 and. later	 under item 20 of the Second Schedule to the . The entry is the same under both enactments but the rate of duty is differ ent. The entry reads: Item N0. The first line of argument of the assessee was that the item 'groundnut kernel ' refers to groundnut seeds	 the basic characteristic of which is the quality of germination. It was submitted that	 since the product exported by the assessee	 though basically ground nuts	 had been so processed and treated that it lost its quality of germination	 it could no longer be described as 'groundnut kernel '. The second line of argument put forward on behalf of the appellant was that the entry in the export tariff referred only to groundnut kernel used for oil ex traction. It was pointed out that groundnut in shell as well as groundnut kernel can be said to be of two varieties one an edible variety and the other a variety used for oil extraction purposes. While it is true that it is not a mutually exclusive classification in that perhaps all groundnut is capable of being eaten or of being 145 processed to yield oil	 the submission was that these two varieties of groundnut kernels or groundnut in shell were two different trade commodities. They had different charac teristics; they were meant for different markets. ; their end use was different; and their prices as well as mode of pricing were totally different. Referring to entries in this regard in the BTN (British Trade Nomenclature)	 the Indian Import Tariff as well as the Indian Import Export Policy	 it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the entry should be confined only to groudnut kernel of the oil yield ing variety and not the variety exported by the appellant	 which could be more appropriately described as "processed food" rather than as groundnut kernel. The appellant 's contention	 initially put forward before the Assistant Collector of Customs in an application for refund	 was rejected by the Collector of Customs	 on appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and	 on further revision	 by the Government of India under the then existing procedure. So far as the subsequent periods of exports were concerned	 the contentions of the appellant were considered and rejected by a Full Bench of the Customs	 Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. The appellant preferred a Spe cial Leave Petition from the order of the Central Government in revision dated 14.2.1978	 which was admitted and num bered as Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1979. Against the other orders of the Tribunal	 the appellant has preferred appeals to this Court under section 130 E of the . On behalf of the appellants	 a number of circumstances have been relied upon to justify the distinction sought to be made between groundnut kernel simpliciter and blanched and roasted groundnuts exported by the assessee. It will be convenient to summarise the points made on behalf of the appellant here: (1) In the Indian Trade Classification (I.T.C.)	 which has been published by the Government of India for purposes of foreign trade	 there is a bifurcation in the classification between the oil seeds and roasted nuts. There are various revisions of this classification. Upto 1st April	 1972	 the I.T.C. classified oil seeds	 oilnuts and oil kernels in Division 22. The various items occurring under this Division were as follows: Code No. Description Unit of Quantity Group 221 Oil seeds	 oilnuts and oil kernels 146 221.1 Groundnuts (Peanuts)	 green. whether or not shelled (excluding flour and meal) 221.1001 Groundnut kernels. H.P.S. 221.1002 Groundnut kernels N.E.S. 221.1003 Groundnut in shell. H.P.S. TONNE 221.1004 Groundnut in shell. N.E.S. As against the above in group No. 053 roasted nuts are specified as below: 053.9009 Others (roasted nuts including groundnuts) In a revised alphabetic index to the commodities	 the relevant code numbers for various commodities pertaining to groundnuts are as follows: Commodity Code No. Groundnut in Shell HPS 221.1003 Groundnut in Shell NES 222.1004 Groundnut kernels HPS 222.1001 Groundnut kernels NES 222.1002 Groundnut oil	 crude 423.4001 Groundnut oil purified 423.4002 Groundnut oil	 deodorized 423.4003 Groundnut oil	 hydrogenated 431.2001 Groundnut oil cake and meal 1081.3201 Groundnut roasted 058.9107 In the more recent classification heading No. 12.02 refers to groundnuts	 not roasted or otherwise cooked	 whether or not shelled 147 or broken. The unit of quantity in which these goods are sold is tonne. This chapter deals with various types of oil seeds like soya beans copra	 linseed	 rape or colza seeds	 sunflower seeds	 palm nuts and kernels and other oil seeds and oleaginous fruits. On the other hand edible nuts come under heading 20.08	 which reads thus: "Fruit	 nuts and other edible parts of plants	 otherwise prepared or preserved	 whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit	 not elsewhere speci fied or included Nuts	 ground nuts and other seeds	 whether or not mixed together: Ground nuts Kg. Other	 including mixtures Cashew nut	 roasted Kg. Nuts	 prepared or preserved Kg. Other roasted nuts and seeds n .e.s. " (2) A similar classification has also been made under the BTN. Note i under this Chapter reads thus: 1. It is to be taken not to apply to coconuts or other products of heading No. 08.01 or to olives (Chapter 7 or Chapter 20). It does not	 however	 include olives (Chapter 7)	 coconuts (heading 08.01) or certain seeds and fruits from which oil may be extracted but which are primarily used for other purposes	 e.g. walnuts and almonds (heading 08.05)	 apricot	 peach and plum kernels (heading 12.08) and cocoa beans (heading 18.01)". 148 It is also stated that the heading covers	 inter alia	 ground nuts (except roasted ground nuts heading 20.06). As against this heading 20.06	 which deals with fruit otherwise prepared or preserved	 whether or not containing added sugar or spirit	 carries the following sub heading: (3) Almonds	 ground nuts	 areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts	 dry roasted	 oil roasted or fat roasted	 whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil	 salt	 flavours	 spices or other additives. (3) Even under the Customs Tariff	 the first Schedule	 which deals with import	 contains a similar classification. Chapter 12 and note 1 to the Chapter are the same as in BTN. Item 12.01 reads oil seeds and oleaginous fruit	 whole or broken (1)not elsewhere specified (2) Copra. Chapter 20 deals with preparations of vegetables	 fruit or other parts of plants. It contains a note that the Chapter covers edible plants. parts of plants and roots of plants conserved in syrup (for example	 ginger) and roasted groundnuts. This indi cates that the customers for two types of goods are totally different. (5) 0n 14th July	 1976	 the Government of India decided to ban with immediate effect export of HPS (Hand Picked Seeds) groundnuts (both in shell and kernel)	 which is canalised through Indian Oil and Oil Produce Exporters ' Association. However	 by an export trade notice dated 8.9.76	 the Government of India clarified that the item "blanched and roasted groundnut kernels"	 does not fall within the purview of Exports Control Order	 1968 and its export is allowed without any licensing formalities. (6) It has been pointed out that the Collector of Cus toms used to levy and recover an agricultural cess on the goods in question until the Government of India	 by an order of 1976	 held that the roasted and salted peanuts/groundnuts exported by the assessee were not liable to cess under the . (7) It is pointed out that the packed roasted seeds exported by the appellants are more value added than raw groundnut kernel used 149 for other purposes. The assessee 's product is packed in vacuum containers and sold in terms of kilograms	 whereas other groundnuts are exported in bags or drums and sold in tomes. It would not be correct to bring both of them under same classification for export purposes. Relying on the above points of difference	 Shri Divan and Dholakia	 appearing on behalf of the appellant vehement ly contend that the entry in the export tariff should be given a restrictive interpretation. Reliance is placed in this context on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Kalaivani Fabrics vs Collector	 a direct decision on the present issue. Reference is made also to the cases cited therein and	 in particular	 to the ruling of this Court in M/s. Healthways Dairy Products Co. vs Union of India & Ors.	 ; Shri Divan submits that if there is any ambiguity or doubt it should be re solved in favour of the assessee. He contends that	 while the taxing authorities	 on whom the onus lies	 have merely rested on the dictionary meaning of the .word 'groundnut kernel '	 the assessee has placed a lot of material show that there are two different commercial varieties of groundnut kernel. He submits that	 in matters of export and import	 the functional test is slowly replacing other tests	 an approach clearly indicated by the classifications under the BTN	 ITC and the import tariffs. Shri Dholakia	 appearing on behalf of the appellant in one of the appeals	 very strongly urges that the commodity known as groundnut kernel consists of two entirely different varieties or classes particularly in matters of trade. There is a sea of difference between the groundnut kernel which is exported as an oil producing variety and the roasted peanuts which are exported more or less as a 'processed food ' by the appellant. The produce exported by the appellants has no oil content; it is incapa ble of being used for germinating purposes; its market	 its unit of quantity of sale	 itS price and even its exporters are totally different viewed from the commercial point of view	 it is impossible to mix up these two varieties under one common heading and this could not have been the inten tion of the export tariff. He	 therefore	 submits that the export tariff item should be restricted only to one of these varieties	 namely	 the oil seed variety or the germinating variety and should not be extended to the roasted items sold by the assessee. Shri Dholakia also raised a point that the appellant 's factory was located in a free trade zone trod that	 having regard to the various notifications of the Government of India	 the Government was estopped from levying any export duty on its products. The necessary facts to 150 found any such promissory estoppel have not been put forward or considered by any of the assessing or appellate authori ties. We	 therefore	 decline to permit Shri Dholakia to raise this question at this belated stage. On the other hand Ms. Nisha Bagchi	 who argued the case on behalf of the Union of India very ably	 submitted that the expressions 'groundnut kernel ' and 'groundnut shell ' used in the export entry were of the widest connotation. She referred to the dictionary meanings of the word 'kernel ' and submitted that there is no justification whatsoever for restricting its meaning on the basis of the capacity to germinate or to yield oil. In fact	 she contended	 the very fact that the export tariff avoids all these classifications and uses a wide expression	 which is capable of taking in both the edible as well as the oil seed varieties of the groundnuts	 supports her conten tion that	 so far as export tariff is concerned	 the legis lature intended no limitations whatsoever. In support of her contention as to the wide meaning of the expression 'ground nut kernel '	 she relied on certain observations of this Court in State vs Shanmagha Vils Cashewnut Factory	 [1953] 4 S.T.C. 205 and of the Madras High Court in Binod Cashew Corporation vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer	 [1986] 61 S.T.C. 1. She submitted that the interpretation sought to be placed on the entries in the export tariff by the appellant will carve away a substantial category of the goods de scribed in the wide tariff entry from its scope. So far as agricultural cess is concerned	 she pointed out	 .rightly	 that it was leviable only in respect of "seeds"	 an expres sion that imports a concept of a capacity to germinate	 particularly	 in an agricultural context. Obviously	 the groundnut kernel	 roasted and salted	 could not be described as 'seeds ' and therefore	 the Government of India had rightly exempted them from agricultural cess. According to counsel	 the functional test may be attracted where there is a bifurcation or classification as in the tariff entries referred to on behalf of the appel lant but there is no justification to import any such test where the expression	 as in this instance	 is broad and unrestricted. Referring to the exemption from export ban	 learned counsel submitted that the very fact that it was considered necessary to exempt the blanched and roasted peanuts from the export ban indicates that otherwise they would have been included in the export ban. Learned counsel took us through the 151 orders of the appellate authorities and the tribunal and submitted that they have taken a correct view in the matter which does not call for any interference. She submitted that groundnut kernel remains groundnut kerneI even after roasting and frying. The process	 though described elaborately on behalf of the appellant	 does not create a different product. This	 she pointed out	 was the finding of the appellate authorities. There is no justification	 therefore counsel contended to read any limitation into the export entry. Having considered the submissions of both parties	 we are of opinion that the contention of the Revenue should prevail. To our mind	 there is no difficulty or ambiguity in the interpretation of the tariff entry. Groundnut is a well known commodity which is available both in shell and as kernel. In this context	 'kernel ' clearly means the grain	 seed or the soft matter inside the shell	 whatever the use or purpose to which it is put	 eating or crushing for oil or sowing. On behalf of the appellant	 it is emphasised that the goods exported by the assessee and groundnut oil seeds are totally different commercial commod ities. Even the acceptance of this argument does not carry the appellant 's case to the desired Assuming that two different commercial commodities fail under the same entry	 there is no reason why the entry should be restricted to only one of them. It can and should cover both unless one can say that the commodity marketed by the appellant is not 'groundnut kernel '. We are not convinced that the goods exported by the assessee have ceased to be groundnuts in the ordinary accep tation of the term or that they have become a different commodity	 say	 a processed food (indeed	 there is no such classification in the tariff entry). The decision in Diwan Chand (Chaman Lal	 [1977] 39 STC 75 turned on the descrip tion of groundnuts in Schedule C of the Punjab Sales Tax Act as a species of oil seeds and it was held that parched groundnuts constituted a different commodity. But the fact is that	 though the raw groundnut kernel has undergone a drying. roasting and frying process	 its identity as ground nut is not lost. Even in the market to which it is exported and where it is marketed	 it is purchased only as groundnuts (or peanuts	 as they are called in the U.S.A.). May be there are two 152 different commodities but both are known only as 'ground nuts '. The argument that the scope of the entry should be restricted because of the two fold classification existing elsewhere between groundnuts as "oil seeds" and groundnuts as "fruits	 nuts and edible substances" does not appeal to us. In the first place	 it does not meet the argument that basically both items are only varieties of groundnuts and hence not taken out of the relevant entry. Secondly	 there is force in the argument of State counsel that the legisla ture has	 deliberately	 not adopted	 for the purposes of the Second Schedule	 the minute multiclassification of the First Schedule and allied classifications. Unlike the Import Tariff	 the BTN and the ITC	 there is no sub classification ' attempted in the export entry. The legislature must be presumed to know that	 for import purposes	 for instance	 groundnuts are classified under different headings with differential rates of duty. Those entries appear not else where but in the First Schedule of the very enactment which sets out the export tariff. The First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act refers to seeds	 oil seeds and oil in section II and talk only of canned fruits and vegetables in section IV (dealing with products of food preparing industries). The entries in the Customs Tariff relating to imports have already been touched upon. If	 in spite of such detailed classification elsewhere	 the legislature decided to use a wider expression in the Second Schedule	 the intention of the legislature must be given effect to. Shri Dholakia submitted that while the need to restrict imports necessitated a detailed enumeration and precise classification	 the export duty is levied only on a short list of items. This may be so but this point of distinction is not enough to explain why	 when an entry finds a place in the export tariff	 it should not receive its normal interpretation but should receive one circumscribed by the entries in the import tariff or other classifications. A point was also made by Sri Dholakia that	 since the export duty is on the basis of tonnes and it is only the groundnut oil seed that is exported in units of tonnes	 the entry should be confined to this commodity alone. This	 we are afraid	 is a very precarious basis for the interpretation of the body of the entry. In this context	 we should also point out that no difficulty	 anomaly or absurdity arising out of the computation of export duty in terms of tonnes on these goods was brought to the notice of the authorities at any stage. It may perhaps have helped if material had been placed before the authorities as to the nature and magnitude of the exports of the two classes of groundnuts	 their relative prices and the duty impact there on. In the absence of any such material	 we find it diffi cult to hold that the commodity in question should be excluded because of the mode of computation of duty 153 prescribed by the tariff entry. Once it is realised both oil seeds and roasted ground nuts exported by the assessee are capable of being described as 'groundnut kernel '	 which is what the entry talks of the various circumstances pointed out that they have different markets	 that their end use is different	 that one of them has been excepted from the export ban that their export is done under the auspices of different Export Promotion Coun cils all fall into place and reveal no inconsistency with	 and have no bearing on	 the interpretation to be placed on the entry. For these reasons	 we are of opinion that the stand of the Revenue has to be upheld and the decision of the Madras High Court in Kalaivani Fabrics (supra) overruled. These appeals	 therefore	 fail and are dismissed. We	 however	 make no order as to costs. R.S.S. Appeals dis missed.

The appellants purchased groundnuts without shell in raw form	 and after subjecting them to various processes and treatment	 packed them in packets and tins which were then exported. The goods were charged to duty under item 13 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act 1934 and	 later	 under item 20 of the Second Schedule to the as 'groundnut kernel '. The appellant however contended that the product exported by it was "processed peanuts"	 and since the product exported by the assessee	 though basically groundnuts	 had been so processed and treated that it lost its quality of germination	 it could no longer be described as 'groundnut kernel '. Another argument of the appellant was that groundnut kernel could be said to be of two varieties one an edible variety	 and the other a variety used for oil extraction purposes	 and that the tariff entry should be confined only to groundnut kernel of the oil yielding variety and not the variety exported by the assessee	 which could be more appropriately described as "processed food" rather than as "groundnut kernel". The appellant 's contentions were rejected by the Collec tor of Customs	 on appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and	 on further revision	 by the Government of India. Subsequently	 the contentions were rejected by a Full Bench of the Customs	 Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribu nal. Before this Court	 the appellants while reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below	 contended that the entry in the export tariff should be given a re strictive interpretation and if there was any ambiguity or doubt it should be resolved in favour of the assessee. It was further submitted that	 in matters of export and import	 the func 142 tional test was slowly replacing other tests. On the other hand	 it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that: i) the expressions 'groundnut kernel and 'groundnut shell ' used in the export entry were of widest connotation: (ii) there was no justification whatsoever for restricting the meaning of the word 'kernel ' on the basis of the capaci ty to germinate or to yield oil; (iii) the functional test may be attracted where there was a bifurcation or classifi cation as in the entries	 but there was no justification to import any such test where the expression. as in this in stance	 was broad and unrestricted; and (iv) groundnut kernel remains groundnut kernel even after roasting and frying and the processing and treatment did not create a different product. Dismissing the appeals	 this Court. HELD: (1) There is no difficulty or ambiguity in the interpretation of the tariff entry. Groundnut is a well known commodity which is available both in shell and as kernel. In this context	 'kernel ' clearly means the grain	 seed or the soft matter inside the shell	 whatever the use or purpose to which it is put	 eating or crushing for oil or sowing. The tariff entry covers all groundnut and there is no justification for confining it to the germinating or the oil seed variety alone. [151C D] M/s Health ways Dairy Products Co. vs Union of India & Ors.	[1976] 2 SCC 887	 referred to. (2) Assuming that two different commercial commodities fall under the same entry	 there is no reason why the entry should be restricted to only one of them. It can and should cover both unless one can say that the commodity marketed by the appellant is not 'groundnut kernel '. [151E] Diwan Chand Chainart Lal 's Case [1977] 39 STC 75	 referred to. Though the raw groundnut kernel has undergone a dry ing	 roasting and frying process	 its identity as groundnut is not lost. Even in the market to which it is exported and where it is marketed	 it is purchased as groundnuts. [I51G] (4) The legislature must be presumed to know that	 for import purposes	 for instance	 groundnuts are classified under different headings with differential rates of duty. Those entries appear not elsewhere 143 but in the First Schedule of the very enactment which sets out the export tariff. If	 in spite of such detailed classi fication elsewhere	 the legislature decided to use a wider expression in the Second Schedule. the intention of the legislature must be given effect to. [152C D] (5) Once it is realised that both oil seeds and roasted groundnuts exported by the assessee are capable of being described as 'groundnut kernel '	 which is what the entry talks of	 the various circumstances pointed out that they have different markets	 that their end use is different	 that one of them has been excepted from the export ban	 that their export is done under the auspices of different Export Promotion Councils all fall into place and reveal no incon sistency with. and have no bearing on	 the interpretation to be placed on the entry. [153B C] Kalaivani Fabrics vs Collector	 	 Over ruled.