ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by the Department is whether the “Plunger” manufactured by M/s. Brakes India Ltd. is “Brake Piston” leviable to duty as “Motor Vehicle Part” under Tariff Item 34A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and Notification No. 90/71, dated 29-5-1971 as amended.
2. Briefly stated facts are that M/s. Brakes India Ltd. manufacture “Plunger” which is used in Brake Assembly as Piston. The Assistant Commissioner held that plunger is classifiable under Item 34A as the application of Tariff Item 34A read with Notification No. 99/71 is not restricted to piston of I.C. engines only. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decisions of the Madras High Court in the case of Southern Automatic Industries (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 693 (Mad.), set aside the order in original holding that the word “piston rings” in Notification No. 99/71 could refer only to a piston used in I.C. engines.
#. Shri R. Swarup, ld. DR submitted that at the relevant time motor vehicle parts were classifiable under Tariff Item 34A; that, however, the parts other than those specified in Notification No. 99/71 were exempted; that Serial No. 6 of the Notification reads as “Piston rings”. Subsequently Notification was amended by Notification No. 95/72 and Serial No. 6 was divided into two Parts (a) Pistons and (b) Piston rings. Again the Notification was further amended by Notification No. 14/75 and two more items were added in Serial No. 6 as (c) Gudgeon Pin and (d) Circlips. He further submitted that the plunger manufactured by the Respondent is known in the market as “brake piston”; that in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, plunger is referred as “part of a mechanism” with a plunging movement, as the solid piston of a force-pump; that as per Merrian Webster Pocket Dictionary, Plunger is a sliding piece in machinery driven by or against fluid pressure, a piston. He also contended that the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Southern Automatic Industries -1987 (30) E.L.T. 693, relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue was related to “circlips” which was a product introduced subsequent to pistons and piston rings; wherein the High Court held that the entry circlip should be read in conjunction with the earlier item piston and should be construed to have relation with the piston assembly; that the goods involved in present case is “piston” which cannot be read together with item “I.C. engine” which does not find place in notification; that as the facts are different, the decisions in Southern Automatic is not applicable to the present case; that there is nothing in Notification No. 99/71 to suggest that the Piston used in I.C. engines alone are dutiable; that the description in the Notification is specific and does not give any room for interpretation; that the interpretation of the provisions of taxing statute must be done strictly in accordance with the language employed therein, without resorting to inferences; that the Collector (Appeals) erred in holding that the pistons used in I.C. engines were dutiable.
3. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that the Dictionary meaning is not relevant for the purpose of classifica tion as has been held by various High Courts; that what is relevant is the meaning as understood in the market by the people normally dealing in the product; that they had submitted various certificates from the automobile traders before the Assistant Collector to show that the piston, as understood by the market, is only engine piston; that the plunger used in brake is specifically referred to as brake piston/plunger but not by the same term piston; that hence plunger cannot be classified as pistons, which would refer only to I.C. engine pistons; that applying the ratio of Madras High Court’s decision in Southern Automatic Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the piston to be chargeable to duty should be used in I.C. engine only. The Madras High Court has held as under:
“On a proper construction of the relevant Notification viz. 99/71, 95/72, and 14/75,1 am inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Item 34A of the first Schedule to the Act cotemplated levy of an ad-valorem duty on parts and accessories of Motor Vehicles not otherwise specified. By the Notification No. 99/71 motor vehicle parts and accessories falling under Item 34A other than those specified in the schedule annexed to the said Notification were exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon as could be seen from the extract of Notification No. 99/71, the items enumerated were eleven in number. We are not concerned with all of them, we are, in the present case, concerned only with Item No. 6 classified earlier as piston rings. It is only this item which got clarified or expatiated by subsequent Notification 95/72 and 14/75. If the intention was to add on any specific item of a new category to the already enumerated items, nothing prevented the Central Government to add on specific new item as Item 12 instead of expatiating Item No. 6 itself. I have not heard any convincing answer on behalf of respondents for this legitimate request. Item 6 after the Notification No. 95/72 specifically refers to ‘pistons’ and ‘piston rings’ as Clauses (a) & (b) Notification No. 14/75 gives further expatiation to this item by adding two more clauses as (c) gudgeon pins and (d) circlips. If the intention was to make circlips, in general, as motor vehicle parts to suffer excise duty or in other words to go out of the exemption under Notification 99/71, it would have been appropriately incorporated as a specific, new and separate item and not appended to an already existing Item 6, Notification 95/72 and 14/75 are only notifications of amendments or expatiation to Item 6 and nothing more. Hence, the amendments or expatiation to Item 6 must have meaning and relevance only with reference to the item as it stood at the relevant point of time. As already noted, the item originally referred to ‘piston rings’ and it subsequently became ‘pistons’ and piston rings. When circlips were inserted in this item, they could have reference and relationship to piston or piston assembly only. When a specific item is inserted in a schedule to a notification when that item gets expatiated by further amendments the amendments have got to be read only with reference to the original insertion and not read de hors the same. The general rule of construction is that no word should be read in isolation and its colour and content should be derived from the context in which it occurs and it is the right and duty of the court to examine a particular word in a statute in its context and when I say, context, I mean the context in which it stands located. Clause (d) of Item 6, circlips cannot be taken out of Item 6 as such and must be read only in the context and colour of Item 6 as a whole from its inception. It is only in this regard this court has to remember that Item No. 6 originally dealt with piston rings and by Notification No. 95/72, the expatiation took in its fold “(a) Pistons” and “(b) Piston Rings”. The addition of Clause (d) by Notification No. 14/75 should also derive its colour and context, or in other words, the meaning to be annexed thereto in the context in which it occurs viz., with reference to Item 6 only and the history of Item 6 cannot be ignored in this regard”.
4. The ld. Counsel, further, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has always maintained that, in the absence of decision to the contrary by any other High Court or the Supreme Court, the decision of the High Court has to be followed. He referred on the decision in the case of C.C.E. v. United Glass and Ors. reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 786 (Tribunal); that the decision in Southern Automatic Industries is a judgment directly relating to interpretation of Item No. 6 of the Schedule to Notification No. 99/71 and the same may be followed; that Notification having grouped piston, piston rings, circlips and gudgeon pins in one entry, the entry should be deemed to refer to items which belong to the said family; that as piston, piston rings, circlips and gudgeon pins are used altogether as a family components only in I.C. engines and not in brakes, only such of those pistons which are capable of being used in I.C. Engines should be deemed to be dutiable in terms of Notification No. 99/71; that the principle was upheld by the Madras High Court in Southern Automatic Industries’ case; that what applies to circlip, will also apply to Piston.
5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We observe that the revenue has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sundaram Clayton – 1989 (43) E.LT. 296 in which Tribunal held that plungers are pistons more so in the absence of any restriction in the Tariff Entry limiting it to Piston in I.C. engines. However, the ld. Counsel, appearing for the Respondents herein, has rightly pointed out that the decision of the Madras High Court in Southern Automatic Industries -1987 (30) E.L.T. 693 (Mad.) was not cited before the Bench deciding the case of Sundaram Clayton. It has been the constant practice of this Tribunal to follow the decision of a High Court if there is no other decision to the contrary by any other High Court or the Apex Court. Further the decision of the Madras High Court, being jurisdictional High Court, has to be followed. The Appellate Tribunal in the case of Madura Coats v. C.C.E. -1996 (82) E.L.T. 512 held that “The Tribunal has to proceed with the decision in Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in East India Commercial Company case, where the jurisdictional High Court i.e., jurisdiction in respect of the authority which adjudicated the matter initially and the assessee, has taken a particular view on interpretation or proposition of law; that view has to be followed in cases within such jurisdiction. If the jurisdictional High Court has not expressed any view in regard to the subject matter, and there is conflict of views among other High Courts, the Tribunal will be free to formulate its own view in the light of Atma Steel Pvt. Ltd. case. The Collector (Appeals) following the decision in the case of Southern Automatic Pvt. Ltd. case referred to above, came to the conclusion that the words piston rings in Notification No. 99/71 could refer only to a piston used in I.C. engine. The revenue has not contended that the Madras High Court’s decision in Southern Automatic case has been revised by the Apex Court nor has it shown any other decision of any other High Court holding a contrary view. In view of these facts and circumstances, following the ratio of the Madras High Court in the Southern Automatic case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.