Judgment Case ID: 5895

Judgment:
vil Appeal Nos. 379 1988 and 3660 82/1987. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.87 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. ED/943/83 D Order No. 838/87 D ED(SB) A. No. 411 and 412/81 D ' and 787/80 D in Order No. 786 to 788/6 D. Kuldip Singh	 Additional Solicitor General	 A.K. Srivastava and P.Parmeswaran and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Appellants. Soil J. Sorabjee	 section Ganesh	 J.R. Gagrat	 P.G. Gokhale	 B.R. Agarwala and C.M. Mehta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI	J. These appeals are under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act	 1944(hereinafter to as 'the Act ') against the decision of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellant Tribunal	 New Delhi ( 'Tribunal ' for short) dated 26the October	1987. The respondent company has its factory at Chakala Andheri and is engaged in the manufacture of non alcoholic beverage bases falling under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. During the course of enquiry	 it was found that the company had during the period from Ist March	 1975 to 18th April	1979 manufactured non alcoholic beverage bases without holding proper Central Excise licence and had cleared the said goods without payment of the duty due thereon and had thereby evaded the duty amounting to PG NO 937 Rs.3	50	963.22. According to the revenue	 prima facie it appeared that the respondent had contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1)	 53	 173 pp(I)	 173 pp(3)	 ]73 pp(6) and 174 of the Central Excise Rules	 1944 (`Rules ' for short) inasmuch as during the period from 1st March	 1975 to 18th April	 1979 the respondent company had manufactured without valid licences required under Section 6 of the Act read with Rule 174 of the Rules	 goods not elsewhere specified and falling under Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule of the Act	 viz.	 non alcoholic beverage bases. The respondent company had further cleared the said goods without filing list of goods manufactured as required by Rule 173 pp(3) of the Rules. The respondent had cleared the said goods without preparing gate passes as required under Rule 173 pp (6) of the Rules. and had further cleared the said goods without maintaining accounts as required under Rule 53 of the Rules. In the circumstances. notices were issued by the relevant officer asking the respondent company to show cause for recovery of the dues and also for imposition of penalty. When the matter came up for consideration before the Collector	 Central Excise	 he found that non alcoholic beverage bases were not themselves food or food products and accordingly did not quality for exemption under Notification No. 55/75 as amended. He accordingly confirmed the demand of central excise duty of Rs.3	50	963.22 under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 10 of the Rules. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.25	000 under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Aggrieved thereby	the respondent company filed an appeal before the Tribunal and contended that the question of the dutiability of non alcoholic beverage bases manufactured by the respondent had been settled by the Tribunal in its decision in the case of respondent itself	 i.e. 	Parle Exports (P)Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise	 Baroda	 which are the subject matter of the connected appeals	 i.e. C.A. Nos. 3680 82 of 1987 The Tribunal following its earlier order allowed the appeal and hence the present appeal by the Revenue. The First Schedule of the Act which provides for the dutiability and the rates of duty applicable to various goods mentioned therein contains the expressions "Food and Beverages It provides therein description of various types of goods and the rates of duties applicable thereto. In the said description "Food and Beverages" many items are included	 viz.	 sugar produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production of sugar	 (1A) confectionery	 cocoa powder and chocolates	 in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power namely. boiled sweets	 toffees	 caramels	 candies	 nuts (including almonds) and fruit kernels coated with sweetening agent	 and PG NO 938 chewing gums	 cocoa powder	 drinking chocolates etc. It also includes items (1B) prepared or preserved foods put up in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale	 including preparations of vegetables	 fruit	 milk	 cereals	 etc.	 and as item (1C) food products	 in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power	 namely	 biscuits	 pasteurised butter	 pasteurised or processed cheese	 aerated waters	 whether or not flavoured or sweetened and whether or not containing vegetable or fruit juice or fruit pulp etc. Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule of the Act provides for duty on "All other goods not elsewhere specified and manufactured in a factory" but excluding	 inter alia alcohol	 all sorts	 including alcoholic liquor for human consumption and other items not necessary for our present purpose. The exemption Notification No. 55/75 C.E. dated 1st March	 1975 reads as follows: "In exercise of powers conferred by sub rule (10) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules	 1944	 the Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in the q Schedule annexed hereto and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the (1 of 1944)	 from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon . THE SCHEDULE 1. All kinds of food products and food preparations	including (i) meat and meat products; (ii) dairy products; (iii) fruit and vegetable products; (iv) fish and sea foods; (v) bakery products; and (vi) grain mill products. Electric light and power. " PG NO 939 The question is	 whether by the notification of exemption non alcoholic beverage bases have been exempted from payment of duty. The only question	 therefore	 in other words	 is whether non alcoholic beverage bases are `food products ' or `food preparations ' covered by the exemption notification No. 55/75 CE of Ist March	 1975. We are not concerned with the question whether in a broad general sense non alcoholic beverage base is food or not. In Brooke Bond (India) Limited vs Union of India	 the question arose before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whether coffee chicory blend was food product and is an item which fell under Tariff Item 68 of the Tariff. The identical notification involved herein came up for consideration in that case. The question was whether it was food product or food preparation	 and as such exempt from excise duty. It was held by the learned Single Judge that what was exempt under the said notification was not food but food products and food preparations and it was further held that coffee chicory blend was neither food nor food preparation. Therefore	 it was not exempt from payment of excise duty under the said notification. The word food has no definition of universal application and it varied from statute to statute. In some cases the dividing line between the two might be thin and in some cases it might be varied but so far as coffee chicory blend was concerned there was little doubt that it was beverage and not food. The learned Judge referred to paragraph 109 of Volume 18 of Halsbury 's Laws of England (4th Edn). In that paragraph	 coffee chicory products are mentioned under the general heading `Food	 Dairies and Salaughter Houses ' and sub heading `Food generally. Coffee chicory blend is also mentioned in that paragraph. But the coffee and coffee products under the heading `Food generally were in the context of the law of Food Adulteration and the Coffee and Coffee Produce Regulations	 q1967 in force in England. Reference was also made by the learned Judge to Corpus Juris Secundum	 Volume 36 at page 1041. The learned Judge	 in our opinion	 rightly observed that the aforesaid passage from the Halsbury 's Laws of England and Corpus Juris Secundum could not be mechanically imported into the present case more particularly when we are concerned with the situation under the Tariff Schedule. `Food '	 as has been noted	 has no fixed definition of universal application and its meaning varies from statute to statute. The dividing line	 the learned Judge observed	 between the beverage and food might be thin and in some case it might overlap. The learned Judge		 however	 observed that it was beverage rather than food. The accordingly held that the notification exempted not food but food products and food preparations and as such coffee chicory blend did not come within the purview of the exemption. The said decision was affirmed by the Division PG NO 940 Bench of that Court in Brooke Bond (lndia) Limited vs Union of India & Ors.	 The Division Bench after exhaustively discussing the points in controversy and after referring to several authorities referred to the decision of Justice Vivian Bose of this Court in The State of Bombay vs Vir Kumar Gulabchand Shah	 [1982] SCR/877	 wherein he had observed in his own and inimitable language at pages 880 883 of the report as under: "Much learned judicial thought has been expended upon this problem what is and what is not food and what is and what is not a foodstuff	 and the only conclusion I can draw from a careful consideration of all the available material is that the term 'foodstuff is ambiguous. In one sense it has a narrow meaning and is limited to articles which are eaten as food for purposes of nutrition and nourishment and so would exclude condiments and spices such as yeast	 salt	 pepper	 baking powder and turmeric. In a wider sense	 it includes everything that goes into the preparation of food proper (as understood in the narrow sense) to make it more palatable and digestible. In my opinion	 the problem posed cannot be answered in the abstract and must be viewed in relation to its background and context. But before I dilate on this	 l will examine the dictionary meaning of the words The Oxford English Dictionary defines foodstuff a follows: "that which is taken into the system to maintain life and growth and to supply waste to tissue". In Webster 's international Dictionary `food is defined as: "nutritive material absorbed or taken into the body of an organism which serves	 for purposes of growth. work repair and for the maintenance of the vital processes". Then follows this explanation: "Animals differ greatly from plants in their nutritive processes and require in addition to certain inorganic substances (water	 salts etc.) and organic. substances of unknown composition (vitamins) not ordinarily ' classed as food 'though absolutely indispensable to life	 and contained in greater of less quantities in the substances eaten) complex organic substances which fall into three principal groups	 Proteins	 Carbohydrates and Fats. " PG NO 941 Next is given a special definition for legal purposes	 namely "As used in laws prohibiting adulteration etc. 	 `food ' is generally held to mean any article used as food or drink by man	 whether simple	 mixed or compound	 including adjuncts such as condiments	 etc.	 and often excluding drugs and natural water. " The definition given of `foodstuff ' is "1. Anything used as food	 2. Any substance of food value as protein	 fat etc. entering into the composition of a food. " It will be seen from these definitions that "foodstuff" has no special meaning of its own. It merely carries us back to the definition of "food" because "food stuff" is anything which is used as "food". So far as "food" is concerned	 it can be used in a wide as well as a narrow sense and	 in my opinion	 must depend upon the context and background. Even in a popular sense	 when one asks another "Have you had your food?"	 one means the composite preparations which normally go to constitute a meal curry and rice	 sweetmeats	 pudding	 cooked vegetables and so forth. One does not usually think separately of the different preparations which enter into their making	 of the various condiments and spices and vitamins	 any more than one would think of separating in his mind the purely nutritive elements of what is eaten from their non nutritive adjuncts. So also	 looked at from another point of view	 the various adjuncts of what I may term food proper which enter into its preparation for human consumption in order to make it palatable and nutritive	 can hardly be separated from the purely nutritive elements if the effect of their absence would be to render the particular commodity in its finished state unsavoury and indigestible to a whole class of persons PG NO 942 whose stomachs are accustomed to a more spicely prepared product. The proof of the pudding is	 as it were	 in the eating	 and if the effect of eating what would otherwise be palatable and digestible and therefore nutritive is to bring on indigestion to a stomach unaccustomed to such unspiced fare	 the answer must	 I think	 be that however nutritive a product may be in one form it can scarcely be classed as nutritive if the only result of eating it is to produce the opposite effect; and if the essence of the definition is the nutritive element	 then the commodity in question must cease to be food	 within the strict meaning of the definition to that particular class of persons	 without the addition of the spices which make it nutritive. Put more colloguially	 "one man 's food is another man 's poison". I refer to this not for the sake of splitting hairs but to show the undesirability of such a mode of approach. The problem must	 I think	 be solved in a commonsense way. " Justice Bose noted that a comparison of war time measure in English and Indian Statutes might not be safe. But food is one which nourishes and sustains human body for the purposes of growth	 work or repair and for the maintenance of the vital process. In the Brooke Bond Ltd. 's case (supra)	 the Division Bench considered the meaning of the expression "coffee chickory blend" and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge as mentioned hereinbefore. Mr. Sorabjee	 learned counsel appearing for the respondent	 drew our attention to several items including Item 68 and the Central Excise Trade Notice dated 18th June 1975 which deals with exemption. The said Trade Notice	 inter alia	 reads as follows: "A number of doubts have been raised about the general scope of the terms `food products/preparations ' vide Entry No. I in the Schedule to Notification No. 55/75 dated 1.3.75. Specific queries have also been raised as to whether items like oil cakes	 rice bran. scented chunam	 katna	 starch	 quargum	 gur	 flour	 ice cream and ice candy	 ice	 supari	 groundnut kernels	 and cashew kernels could be regarded as covered under the above entry as claimed by the manufacturers of these goods. The matter has been examined and the following clarifications are used for the information of the trade. PG NO 943 The word `food ' is a general term and applies to all that is eaten by men for nourishment and takes in subsidiaries	 further; (i) preparations for use	 either directly or after processing such as cooking	 dissolving or oiling in water	 milk etc. for human consumption; and (ii) preparations used because of their nutritional or flavouring properties in the making of beverages or food stuffs for human consumption	 are classiable as food preparations. But such preparations which because of their ingredients and small proportion in which they are normally used	 are clearly added for other purposes	 or not classiable as food preparations." (underlined by us). Mr. Sorabjee also drew our attention to the explanatory note in Heading No. 21.07 of CCCN which states	 inter alis as follows: "21.07 FOOD PREPARATIONS NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED OR lNCLUDED. Provided that they are not covered by any other heading of the Nomenclature the present heading covers: (A) Preparations consisting wholly or partly of foodstuffs	 used in the making of beverages or food preparations for human consumption. The heading includes preparations consisting of mixtures of chemicals (organic acids	 calcium salts	 lecithin etc.) with food stuffs (flour	 sugar	 milk	 milk powder	 etc.) for incorporation in food preparations either as ingredients or to improve some of their characteristics (appearance keeping qualities etc.)" Clause (2) of the said explanatory notes in heading No. 20.17 of CCCN contains the following: "(2) Flavouring powders for making beverages	 whether or not sweetened with a basis of bicarbonate of soda and glycyrrhizin or liquorice extract (sold on the Continent as "Cocoa powder"). " PG NO 944 Our attention was also drawn to Item ( 12) of the same which runs as follows: "(12). Non alcoholic compound preparations (often known as "concentrated extracts") used for making beverages (liqueurs	 etc.) unless they are included elsewhere in the Nomenclature. These preparations are obtained by compounding vegetable extracts of heading 13.03 with lactic acid	 tartaric acid	 citric acid	 phosphoric acid	 preserving agents	 foaming agents	 fruit juices	 etc.	 and sometimes with essential oils. Alcoholic preparations of this type are excluded (heading 22.09)" Mr. Sorabjee further drew our attention to the Appendix 17 of Import Policy of 1981 82 which was relied upon by the Tribunal in the second decision	 i.e. the Parle Exports (P) Ltd. case which is the subject matter of the connected appeals	 i.e. C.A. Nos. 3680 82 of 1987. It was pleaded that it was always understood and treated as a part of the food product. Reliance was also placed on the reports of the Chief Chemist of the Central Excise Regional Laboratory	 Baroda to which Mr. Sorabjee drew our attention. The reports dealing inter alia with some items stated as follow: "Gold Spot Base: S.R.No. 1 Base A (Lab. No.10) The sample is in the form of orange coloured liquid containing flavouring agents free from Alcohol. (Please see note attached). No 2 Base (Lab. No. 11) The sample is in the form of white powder. It is sodium Benzoate a chemical known to be used as a preservative. S.R. No.3 . Base C (Lab. No. 12) The sample is in the form of white powder. It is vitamin `C '(ascorbic acid) an organic chemical. Limca Base: PG NO 945 S.R. No. 4 Base A (Lab. No. 13) The sample is in the form of white liquid containing flavouring agents. It is free from Alcohol. (Please see note attached.) S.R. No. 5 Base B (Lab. No. 14) The sample is in the form of white powder. It is sodium Benvonate a chemical known to be used as a preservative. " The note appended to these reports stated inter alia the following: "NOTE" "The term "food ' ' as defined in the meant any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes: (a) Any article which ordinarily enters into	 or is used in the composition or preparation of human foods; and (b) any flavouring matter or condiments. Food products which are excluded from item (C) would fall under Item 68 of Central Excise	 Tariff read with the Notification 62/78 dated 1.3.78 excluded as amended. The term "Food preparations" on the other hand would cover; (a) Preparation for use either directly or after processing (such as cooking	 dissolving or boiling in water	 milk etc.) for human consumption. (b) Preparation consisting wholly or partly of food stuffs used in making of Beverages or food preparation for human consumption. This would also include concentrated extract for making non alcoholic beverages. B.T.N. heading 21.07) PG NO 946 In this connection attention is also invited to Bangalore Collectorate trade notice No. 103/75 dated 18.6.75. In view of that has been stated above samples at Sl. No. 1	 4	 8	 9	 13 and 15 may be deemed to fall in the category of food preparations. However	 before finalising the assessment	 it may be worthwhile ascertaining whether the above products are also known as food preparations in common parlance and trade. The views of the Director. Drugs & Food Laboratory	 Baroda may also sought	 if necessary." Mr. Sorabjee submitted that the Tribunal has relied on the Bangalore Collectorate Trade Notice as referred hereinbefore	 order of the Appellate Collector in the case of Bush Boake Allan (India) Limited	 and Heading No. 21.07 of CCCN	 Import Policy of the Government of India for 1981 82 as well as the observations in Encyclopaedia Britannica	 Volume 13 at pages 420 421. It was submitted that the said orders of the Tribunal had considered and taken into consideration all the relevant factors. The Tribunal has acted on the varied materials	 and therefore	 such decision of the Tribunal should not be altered or deviated from. Reliance was placed on the observations of this Court in Collector of Customs	 Bombay v	 Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd. and Ors.	 at paragraph 9. The expression "food products" is not defined in the Act The product exemption includes `food and food preparations ' and provides an inclusive definition of `food products ' and 'food preparations '. But the correct and the appropriate meaning of the expressions covered in the said notification has to be found out. The question is whether non alcoholic beverage base is either `food product ' or `food preparation ' in terms of the notification in question. Mr. Sorabjee tried to suggest that fruit and vegetable juice might become fruit or vegetable products to come under Item 1(iii) of the Schedule to the exemption notification. Learned Additional Solicitor General	 Mr. Kuldip Singh	 on the other hand submitted that non alcoholic beverage base though having some food value	 is not food product or food preparation	 at any rate	 in the context of the Act and notification as such. lle drew our attention to the first heading in the First Schedule to the Act dealing with "Food and Beverages" and pointed out that items 1 to IC deal with Food and Food Products while item 1D deals with beverages separately. He submitted before us that this indicates that PG NO 947 the expression "food products and food preparations" are used in contrast to "beverages" so far as the present Act and notifications thereunder are concerned. There is force in the submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Government of India in Re: Asian Chemical Works	 where the Government of India opined that `Food flavours ' and `food preparations	 might improve taste or appearance of food products and/or food preparations	 but by themselves could not be legitimately consumed directly or after processing such as cooking	 dissolving	 or boiling in water for human consumption independently. Mr. Singh submitted that in ordinary common and commercial parlance also the goods in question are not known as food products and/or food preparations as such	 therefore	 these are not to be treated as exempt under the notification. Mr. Singh submitted that when a person says "I have consumed food" he does not mean or says that he has consumed non alcoholic beverage bases. Therefore	 those goods cannot be understood as covered by the notification of exemption. It was submitted that how Government understood a matter at the time of the notification	 is a relevant factor and that is a factor which one should bear in mind in view of the principles enunciated by this Court in K.P. Verghese vs Income Tax Officer	 Ernakulam & Anr.	 ; It is a well settled principle of interpretation that courts in construing a statute or notification will give much weight to the interpretation put up on it at the time of enactment or issue	 and since by those who have to construe. execute and apply the said enactments. How then should the courts proceed? The expressions in the Schedule and in the notification for exemption should be understood by the language employed therein bearing in mind the context in which the expressions occur. The words used in the provision	 imposing taxes or granting exemption should be understood in the same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them. It is	 however	 necessary to bear in mind certain principles. The notification in this case was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and should be read along with the Act. The notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions. When a notification is issued in accordance with power conferred by the statute	 it has statutory force and validity and	 therefore	 the exemption under the notification is	 as if it were contained in the Act itself. See in this connection the PG NO 948 observations of this Court in Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. vs The Union of India	 [1962] Supp. 3 SCR 481. See also Kailash Nath vs State of U.P.	 AIR The principle is well settled that when two views of a notification are possible	 it should be construed in favour of the subject as notification is part of a fiscal enactment. But in this connection	 it is well to remember the observations of the Judicial Committee in Coroline M. Armytage & Ors. vs Federick Wilkinson	 at 370 that it is only	 however	 in the event of there being a real difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of a particular enactment that the question of strictness or of liberality of construction arises. The Judicial Committee reiterated in the said decision at page 369 of the report that in a taxing Act provisions establishing an exception to the general rule of taxation are to be construed strictly against those who invoke its benefit. While interpreting an exemption clause	 liberal interpretation should be imparted to the language thereof	 provided no violence is done to the language employed. It must	 however	 be borne in mind that absurd results of construction should be avoided. In Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.	 [1982] l SCR 129 this Court emphasised that the notification should not only be confined to its grammatical or ordinary parlance but it should also be construed in the light of the context. This Court reiterated that the expression should be construed in a manner in which similar expressions have been employed by those who framed relevant notification. The Court emphasised the need to derive the intent from a contextual scheme. In this case therefore	 it is necessary to endeavour to find out the true intent of the expressions "food products and food preparations" having regard to the object and the purpose for which the exemption is granted bearing in mind the context and also taking note of the literal or common parlance meaning by those who deal with those goods	 of course bearing in mind. that in case of doubt only it should be resolved in favour of the assessee or the dealer avoiding	 however. an absurd meaning. Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind	 in our opinion	 the revenue is right that the nonalcoholic beverage bases in India cannot be treated or understood as new `nutritive material absorbed or taken into the body of an organism which serves for the purpose of growth	 work or repair and for the maintenance of the vital process ' and an average Indian will not treat non alcoholic beverage bases as food products or food preparations in that light. PG NO 949 We have also noted how these goods were treated by the Government as mentioned hereinbefore. There is no direct evidence as such as to how in commercial parlance unlike in ordinary parlance	 non alcoholic beverage bases are treated or whether they are treated as food products or food preparations. The purpose of exemption is to encourage food production and also give boost to the production of goods in common use and need. After all the purpose of exemption is to help production of food and food preparations at cheaper price and also help production of items which are in common use and need	 like electric light and power. The question of interpretation involves determining the meaning of a text contained in one or more documents. Judges are often criticised for being tied too closely to the statutory words and for failing to give effect to the intention of the Parliament or the lawmaker. Such language	 it has been said	 in Cross 's "Statutory Interpretation" (Second Edn.) at page 21	 appears to suggest that there are two units of enquiry in statutory interpretation the statutory text and the intention of the Parliament and the Judge must seek to harmonise the two. This	 however	 is not correct. According to the tradition of our law	 primacy is to be given to the text in which the intention of the law giver has been expressed. Cross refers to Blackstone 's observations that the fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the law maker is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made	 by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words	 the context	 the subject matter	 the effects and consequences	 or the spirit and reason of the law. We have no doubt	 in our opinion	 that having regard to the language used it would not be in consonance with the spirit and the reason of law to give exemption for non alcoholic beverage bases under the notification in question. Bearing the aforesaid purpose	 in our opinion	 it cannot be contended that expensive items like Gold Spot base	 Limca base or Thumps up base were intended to be given exemption at the cost of public exchequer. For the aforesaid reasons	 the appeals have to be allowed and the decision of the Tribunal reversed. We	 however. need not go into the question of penalty as well as the question of limitation which have been left open by the Tribunal in its order. It will be open for the parties to urge these points afresh before the Tribunal. We express no opinion on these aspects. The appeals to the extent indicated above are allowed. There will	 however	 be no order as to costs. R.S.S. Appeals allowed.

Summary:
The respondent company was engaged in the manufacture of nonalcoholic beverage bases falling under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. According to the Revenue	 the company manufactured the nonalcoholic beverage bases without holding proper Central Excise Licence	 and had cleared the said goods without payment of the duty due thereon. The stand of the company was that the goods were exempt from duty under Notification No. 55/75 C.E. dated 1st March	 1975 which inter alia exempted "all kinds of food products and food preparations". The Customs and Excise Collector confirmed the demand of central excise duty against the company. In appeal	 the Confirmed the demand of and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the company. The Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the appellants contended that (i) non alcoholic beverage base though having some food value	 was not food product or food preparation. at any rate	 in the context of the Act and notification as such; (ii) the expression "food products and food preparations" was used in contrast to "beverages" so far as the present Act and notifications thereunder were concerned; (iii) in ordinary common and commercial parlance also the goods in question were not known as food products and/or food preparations as such	 and therefore these were PG NO 933 PG NO 934 not to be treated as exempt under the notification; and (iv) how Government understood a matter at the time of the notification	 was a relevant factor and that was a factor which one should bear in mind. K.P. Verghese vs Income Tax Officer Ernakulam	 ; and Government of India 's decision in Re: Asian Chemical Works	 	 relied upon. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the Tribunal had acted on the varied materials	 and therefore	 such decision of the Tribunal should not be altered or deviated from. Collector of Customs	 Bombay vs Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd.	 	 relied upon. Allowing the appeals	 it was	 HELD: (1) The word `Food ' has no fixed definition of universal application and its meaning varies from statute to statute. But food is one which nourishes and sustains human body for the purposes of growth	 work or repair and for the maintenance of the vital process.[939D] Brooke Bond (India) Limited vs Union of India	 ; Brooke Bond (India) Limited vs Union of India. 119%41 and The State of Bombay vs Virkumar Gulabchand Shah	 ; 	 referred to. (2) The expression `food products ' is not defined in the Act. The exemption includes food products and food preparations ' and provides an inclusive definition of `food products ' and food preparations '. [946E] (3) The words used in the provision	 imposing taxes or granting exemptions	 should be understood in the same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them. [947F] (4) It is a well settled principle of interpretation that courts in construing a statute or notification will give much weight to the interpretation put upon it at the time of enactment or issue	 and since by those who have to construe	 execute and apply the said enactments. l947E] PG NO 935 (5) The notification should not only be confined to its grammatical or ordinary parlance but it should also be construed in the light of the context. The expression should be construed in a manner in which similar expressions have been employed by those who framed the relevant notification	 [948E] Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh	 ; 	 referred to. (6) The question of interpretation involves determining the meaning of a text contained in one or more documents. Judges are often criticised for being tied too closely to the statutory words and for failing to give effect to the intention of the Parliament or the law maker. [949C] (7) According to the tradition of our law	 primacy is to be given to the text in which the intention of the law giver has been expressed. [949D] (8) The principle is well settled that when two views of a notification are possible	 it should be construed in favour of the subject as notification is part of a fiscal enactment avoiding	 however	 as absurd meaning. [948F] Coroline M. Armytage & Ors. vs Frederick Wilkinson	 	 referred to. (9) The notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions. When a notification is issued in accordance with power conferred by the statute	 it has statutory force and validity and	 therefore	 the exemption under the notification is	 as if it were contained in the Act itself [947G H] Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. vs Union of India	 [1962] Supp.3 SCR 481 and Kailash Nath vs State of U.P.	 AIR 1975 SC 790	 referred to. (10) The purpose of exemption is to encourage food production and also give boost to the production of goods in common use and need. After all	 the purpose of exemption is to help production of food and food preparations at cheaper price and also help production of items which are in common use and need	 like electric light and power. [949A B] PG NO 936 (11) Having regard to the language used it would not be in consonance with the spirit and the reason of law to give exemption for non alcoholic beverage bases under the notification. Bearing the aforesaid purpose	 it cannot be contended that expensive items like Gold spot base	 Limca base or Thumps up base were intended to be given exemption at the cost of the public exchequer.[949E F] (12) Non alcoholic beverage bases in India cannot be treated or understood as new 'nutritive material absorbed or taken into the body of an organism which serves for the purpose of growth	 work or repair and for the maintenance of the vital process ' and an average Indian will not treat non alcoholic beverage bases as food products or food preparations in that light.[948G H]