M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1951/1998Supreme Court[2002] 2 S.C.R. 94504 April 2002Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, ARIJIT PASAYAT10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the language of Note 1(a) of Chapter 84 is clear and unambiguous and does not speak of a class, category, or genus followed by general words. Therefore, the rule of ejusdem generis is not applicable. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions should be interpreted in their context, and where the language is clear and the legislative intent is conveyed, courts should not amend or alter the provisions. Merely because a provision could have been worded differently does not affect the meaning of the clear and unambiguous expression used. The Court reiterated that the rule of ejusdem generis applies only when specific words constituting a class or category are followed by general words, which is not the case here. Consequently, the Karbate Tubes were correctly classified under sub-heading 6815.10 as per the Revenue's contention, and not under sub-heading 8419.50 as claimed by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Grasim Industries Ltd., imported Karbate Tubes made of artificial graphite impregnated with Phenolic resin, which are parts of Heat exchangers. The Assistant Collector of Customs classified these goods under Tariff Item sub-heading 6815.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The assessee claimed classification under sub-heading 8419.50. The Collector (Appeals) and the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal upheld the classification under sub-heading 6815.10, citing an exclusion in Note 1(a) of Chapter 84. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging this classification and the interpretation of the exclusion clause.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Karbate Tubes, being parts of Heat exchangers, are classifiable under sub-heading 6815.10 or sub-heading 8419.50 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, considering Note 1(a) of Chapter 84. Assessee's contentions: - The Karbate Tubes are parts of Heat exchangers and should be classified under Chapter 84. - Note 1(a) of Chapter 84 excludes only items specifically listed in sub-heading 6804 (mill-stones, grindstones, grinding wheels, and the like). - By applying the principle of ejusdem generis, only articles similar to those in sub-heading 6804 would be excluded, not all articles in Chapter 68. - If the legislature intended Note 1(a) to apply to all articles in Chapter 68, it would have used the expression 'articles of Chapter 68' instead of 'other articles of Chapter 68'. Revenue's contentions: - The language of the provision (Note 1(a)) is clear and unambiguous. - Accepting the assessee's interpretation would require amending or altering the statutory provision by adding or deleting words, which is not permissible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962, Customs Tariff Act, 1975

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 81 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

MIS GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY APRIL 4, 2002 [S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., N. SANTOSH HEDGE AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] A B Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Tariff item : Sub-heading 6815.10 and 8419.50-Chapter 84 .. Note (I) (a)-Karbate Tubes which are, Part of Heat exchangers-Classification of under sub-heading 6815.10-Claim for C classification under sub-heading 8419.50-Held by tribunal that it cannot be classified in sub-headings 8419.50 in view of exclusion clause in Note I (a) of Chapter 84-Plea that the Note excludes only the entries in sub-heading 6804,

hence by appli~tion of principle ofeju em generis only the articles similar to the items "in sub-heading 6804 would be excluded-On appeal-Held, D since the language of the Note is clear and unambiguous and the same does not speak of a class, category of genus followed by general words, rule of eju em generis would not be applicable. Doctrines: Principle of eju em generis-Applicability of-Discussed Interpretation of Statutes: Statutes-Provisions-Words-Interpretation of-To be in the context E in which words used and to be gathered from mens sententia legis of the F legislature-Clear language

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →