Venkateswara Stainless Steel and Wire Industries vs Union of India and Another

The Petitioner in these six Writ petitions wanted to bring stainless steel circles imported by it under Headings 73.15(1) of the First Schedule,

hereinafter referred to as the Schedule, to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (No. 51 of 1975). That has not been accepted by the Authorities

concerned and they have brought the stainless circles under Heading 73.15(2) of the Schedule. Heading 73.15 as a whole reads as follows :

Heading Sub-heading No. and Rate of Central Excise

No. description of Duty Tariff Item

article

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) (2) (3) (4)

73.15 Alloy Steel and high

carbon steel in the

forms mentioned in

Heading Nos. 73.06/07

to 73.14 26AA

(1) Not elsewhere (a) 60%

specified

(2) Coils for (a) 300%

rerolling,

strips, sheets

and plates, of

stainless steel

According to the petitioner, stainless steel circles imported by it cannot fall within the category of ''sheets'' under Heading 73.15(2) as opined by

the Authorities and they could only come under Heading 73.15(1) of the Schedule. The expression ''sheets'' occurring under Heading 73.15 (2)

does not stand clarified by any Note. In contrast, not ''N'' to heading 73.13 which mentions about sheets and plates, of iron or steel, hot rolled or

cold rolled, annexures a particular meaning to ''sheets'' or ''plates''. Heading 73.13 reads as follows :

(1) (2) (3) (4)

73.13 Sheets and plates of iron

rolled or cold rolled

(1) Not elsewhere specified (a) 40% 26AA

(2) Tinned sheets and plates (a) 40% 28

Note ''n'' thereto runs in the following terms :

Sheets and plates

rolled products (Heading No. 73.13) other than coils for re-rolling as defined in paragraph (k) above of any thickness and, if in rectangles of a

width exceeding 500 millimeters.

Heading No. 73.13 is to be taking to apply, inter alia, to sheets or plates which have been cut to non-rectangular shape, perforated, corrugated,

channelled, ribbed, polished or coated, provided that they do not thereby assume the character of articles or of products falling within other

Headings.

The expression ''sheets'' need not necessarily be given any restricted meaning so as to exclude circles. Heading 73.15 speaks about alloy steel

and high carbon steel (which takes in stainless steel also) in the forms in the preceding Headings 73.06/07 to 73.14, which includes Heading 73.13

also. It is only in this context note ''n'' may be looked into when it says that Heading No. 73.13 is to be taken to apply, inter alia, to sheets or

plates, which have been cut to non-rectangular shape. May be it could be stated that note ''n'' could have reference and relevance to Heading

73.13 alone; and not to Heading 73.15 and that exactly is that argument put forth by Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. Even without reference to note ''n'' to Heading 73.13, in the absence of any restriction laid down to the meaning to be annexed to the

expression ''sheets'' occurring in Heading 73.15(2) it is not possible to exclude stainless steel circles from the category of ''sheets'' and bring it

under the residuary Heading 73.13(1). A similar contention was raised before a Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Super Traders and another v.

Union of India and others 1983 (12) L.L.J 258 and the Bench after adverting to note ''n'' to Heading 73.13 expressed the view that a non-

rectangular shape may be in the form of circle, may be of a shape having different angles, like being quadrangular of Hexagon, and no reasonable

interpretation will exclude ''circles'' from ''sheets'' in general. But, as I have already stated, even without reference to and relying on note ''n'' to

Heading 73.13, in the absence of an express exclusion of ''circles'' from ''sheets'' occurring in Heading 73.15(2), it is not possible to take away

''circles'' from ''sheets'' as such occurring under that Heading. The expression ''sheet'' is generic and it means an expanse or a spread out. Sheet

could be in any form, in circle, square, rectangular, hexagonal, octagonal. Merely because the sheet takes the shape of a circle, it may not be

permissible to take out of the category of sheet, and it continues to be a sheet only. The shape of the sheet is of no consequence at all, so long

there is no specific exclusion of circles from the generic term ''sheets''.

Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would also submit that the matter is not above ambiguity, and in such a case, the

fiscal statute must be construed beneficial to and in favour of the citizen. I am not able to spell out any ambiguity with regard to bringing stainless

steel ''circles'' which are also ''sheets'' within the general terms ''sheets'' occurring in Heading 73.15(2) and hence there is no need to advert to this

principle at all.

Learned counsel would also urge that the analogous legislations have dealt with ''circles'' separately and he draws my attention to items 26A and

27 of the First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the concerned Notification in the Customs Act, as well as the dealing of

''circles'' separately under the Import Control Policy for the year 1979-80. In my view, that by looking into analogous statutes or provisions, it is

not possible to construe the provision of the particular statute, with which we are concerned and the principle is well-settled that no tax can be

imposed or excluded by analogy.

Learned counsel would also submit that the specifications of stainless coils and circles have been given by the India Standard Institution, and that

also deals with ''circles'' separately. We are not concerned with the standard dimensions for ''sheets'', ''coils'' and ''circles''. We are here more

concerned with the question as to whether ''sheets'' could take in ''circles'' also. Hence, no inspiration could be drawn from the said specifications

for finding a solution to the question in issue. I have found no reason to exclude ''circles'' from the purview of ''sheets'' occurring in Heading

73.15(2).

For all these reasons, I am not able to persuade myself to interfere with the orders passed by the second-respondent, which are being impugned

in these Writ Petitions and accordingly the Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs.