ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether hospital stainless steel utensils are eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 53/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel utensils. They filed C/List in respect of hospital utensils falling under T.I. 68 and claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 53/84. The Asstt. Collr. denied the benefit of concessional rate of duty on the ground that the said stainless steel utensils (hospital utensils) are not used in household or in kitchen. Against this order, the respondents filed an appeal before the ld. Collr. (Appeals) who after considering the various submissions and the case-law on the subject set aside the order of the Asstt. Collr. and allowed the appeal of the respondents. Against this order, the ld. Commr. has filed the present appeal.
3. Shri G.D. Sharma, ld. DR submitted that the ld. Collr. (Appeals) has erroneously allowed the appeal of the respondents herein inasmuch as there is distinction between hospital utensils and ordinary utensils and that the one cannot be mistaken for the other. The ld. DR submitted that by no stretch of imagination, an inference can be drawn that the word ‘utensil’ will cover hospitalware. The ld. DR submitted that since hospital utensils cannot be treated as ordinary utensils, therefore, the respondents herein were not entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 53/84 and therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal allowed.
4. Shri S.L. Saini, representative of the company submitted that the Notification allowed the benefit to stainless steel utensils. He submitted that ISI Specification clearly described the various items manufactured by them as hospital utensils. He submitted that since utensils were used in hospitals for a particular purpose, they were known as hospital utensils but the fact remains that they were stainless steel utensils. He submitted that since in the notification, the term ‘utensil’ has not been defined and therefore, we have to go by the common parlance test and if the common parlance test is not available then we have to depend on the ISI Specification. He submits that even in common parlance the items are known as hospital utensils and that the ISI Specification also termed the item as hospital utensils. He submits that whichever way it is looked into, the goods manufactured by them were utensils and were eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 53/84. He therefore, prayed that the appeal may be rejected and the impugned order may be upheld.
5. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that under Notification No. 53/84, dated 1-3-1984, the Central Govt. exempted goods of the description specified in the Schedule annexed falling under T.I. No. 68 from so much duty of excise leviable thereon as was in excess of 5% ad valorem. In the Schedule to this Notification, the specified items against Serial No. 5 is stainless steel utensils. Therefore, the only point for determination is that whether the items described as hospital utensils can be treated as stainless steel utensils. There is no dispute that hospital utensils were made of stainless steel. The only dispute is whether the term ‘utensil’ includes hospital utensils also. The Asstt. Collector has relied on the definition of the term ‘utensil’ given in Oxford Concise Dictionary holding that the term ‘utensil’ will not cover hospitalware. We observe that in Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language Encyclopedic Edition on page 1083 defines ‘utensil’ as “any of various vessels or devices used in a kitchen, e.g. a cooking pot or eggbeater, any of various tools used by artisans, farmers etc., a vessel, ornament etc. used in church services.” From this we find that the term ‘utensil’ is not limited to the utensils used in the household but covers other items also. As against this, we find that the ld. Collor. (Appeals) had not relied on the dictionary meaning of the term ‘utensil’ alone but also relied on the case-law discussed by him. Having regard to the fact that there was no restriction in the Notification defining the term ‘utensil’ in a particular way, having regard also to the fact that dictionary meaning of the term ‘utensil’ is not limited to household utensil, having also regard to the fact that ISI Specification for the items described items as hospital utensils and having regard to the fact that the words appearing in the statute are to be given their natural meaning and not restricted meaning in the absence of any particular definition, we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. In the circumstances, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.