Skip to content


Delta Spokes Mfg Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC549DTri(Delhi)
AppellantDelta Spokes Mfg Co.
RespondentCollector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....he added that when in 1982 the government omitted item 35 from the tariff and thereby all cycle parts became classifiable under item 68, the government simultaneously exempted cycles and parts thereof by amending the exemption notification no. 55/75-ce relating to item 68 goods. this shows, argued shri jain, that government's intention in the past also was not to charge any duty on the subject cycle parts.3. the department's representative maintained that use of the word 'namely" before enumeration of cycle parts in the description of tariff item 35 clearly meant that only the two named cycle parts, that is, free wheels and rims, fell under item 35 and that the remaining cycle parts fell under the residuary item 68 unless they happened to be specifically classifiable.....
Judgment:
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether spokes, nipples and washers were liable to duty of excise under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, as held by the Department, or they were exempt from payment of duty under Item 35 of the said Tariff, as urged by the appellants. For facility of reference, the two Tariff items are reproduced below: - 2. The case was argued before us on 1-3-1983. On behalf of the appellants, Shri Jain stated that spokes, nipples and washers manufactured by the appellants were essential parts of cycles and were, therefore, correctly classifiable under Item 35. He stated that the word "namely" occurring in Item 35 was not restrictive but only illustrative. He added that when in 1982 the Government omitted Item 35 from the Tariff and thereby all cycle parts became classifiable under Item 68, the Government simultaneously exempted cycles and parts thereof by amending the exemption Notification No. 55/75-CE relating to Item 68 goods. This shows, argued Shri Jain, that Government's intention in the past also was not to charge any duty on the subject cycle parts.

3. The Department's representative maintained that use of the word 'namely" before enumeration of cycle parts in the description of Tariff Item 35 clearly meant that only the two named cycle parts, that is, free wheels and rims, fell under Item 35 and that the remaining cycle parts fell under the residuary Item 68 unless they happened to be specifically classifiable elsewhere.

4. We have carefully considered the matter. As per the accepted cannons of interpretation, the word "namely" has a meaning quite different from "such as" or "e.g." or "the like". The word "namely" is not illustrative but restricts the scope of the Entry to the articles named therein. As regards the appellants' argument of Government's intention, it is also well settled that when the natural meaning of the Entry is clear, there is no scope for any intendtnent or presumption. The position in the instant case is that only free wheels and rims, which were specifically named in Item 35, fell under that fern and the subject spokes, nipples and washers, being neither specified in Item 35 nor in any other item of the Tariff from 1 to 67, the Department has correctly held them to fall under the residuary Item 68.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //