ORDER
T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)
1. The present appeals are directed against the orders passed by the C.C. (Appeals), Madras. In the impugned order, it was held that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 30/95, dated 16-3-1995.
2. Since all these three appeals involve a common issue, we are deciding the appeals by this common order.
3. The short point that arises for determination in these appeals are whether the appellants are entitled for the benefit of the notification referred to supra. In order to appreciate the contention of the appellants, we, at the outset, reproduce the material portion of the notification as below :-
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the CESA, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts goods specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed and falling within Chapter 58 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.
TABLE
_____________________________________________________
S. No. Description of goods Rate
1. Woven pile fabrics, chenille
fabrics, terry towelling and
similar woven terry fabrics,
including narrow woven fabrics
of a width not exceeding 30 cm.
and not containing elastomeric
yarn or rubber thread."
_____________________________________________________
4. The learned lower adjudicating authority has stated that the correct interpretation will be that the narrow woven fabrics ought to fall in the general clause as any of the woven pile fabrics, chenille fabrics, terry towelling and similar woven terry fabrics and tufted textile fabrics, etc.
5. The learned Counsels, S/Shri Raghavan and Arvind Datar appeared for the first two appeals. Shri A. Thiagarajan, the learned Counsel appeared for the appellant in Appeal No. C/R-218/96. The learned Counsels contended before us that the first two items mentioned are falling under Tariff Item 58.01, the next three items are falling under Tariff Item 58.02 and thereafter there is a comma and after that it was mentioned “including narrow woven fabrics of a width not exceeding 30 cm. and not containing elastomeric yarn or rubber thread”. They contended these falls under Tariff Item 58.06. It was also brought to our notice that in Chapter 58 under S. No. 6 the expression “narrow woven fabrics” is also defined. In such circumstances, Shri Raghavan contended that this has to be read disjunctively. In this connection, the following decisions were brought to your notice :-
(i) Sri M.K. Salpekar v. Sri Sunil Kumar reported in AIR 1988 SC 1841, 1843 and 1844 (ii) Sri A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1950 SC 27 and 45 (iii) Sri Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1979 SC 564 and 565.
6. The learned SDR contended before us that the correct interpretation will be that the narrow woven fabrics should fall in the general clause of any of the five preceding items. He stated that the first two items mentioned fall under 58.01 and next three items in the notification fall under 58.02. Therefore, the narrow woven fabrics as a separate class of item cannot be included in the notification and it should be read along with the previous five items. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Heeral Enterprises and Anr. v. CC, Bombay, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 269.
7. We have considered the submissions. It is now seen that the first two items fall under 58.01 i.e. woven pile fabrics and chenille fabrics. After each item there is a comma. The next three items fall under 58.02. After each item there is a comma. Thereafter narrow woven fabrics are also mentioned, which is mentioned after a comma. Therefore, it is clear that this has to be read as disjunctively as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions relied upon by the learned Counsels. When the principles of construction are clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited cases, we are of the view that since there is a comma and after that comma the narrow woven fabrics are mentioned, the same are to be read disjunctively and the reasonings in the impugned order that narrow woven fabrics ought to fall in the general clause of the preceding five items cannot be held to be correct in view of the interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in the above cited cases. The ratio of the decision which is relied upon by the learned SDR does not apply to the facts of the present case in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions which are referred to supra. The appeals are thus allowed with consequential relief.