ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. M/s. Dental Products of India Ltd., 253, A-Z, Industrial Estate, G. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Bombay – 400013 have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Briefly the facts of the case are that Dental Products of India Ltd., Bombay are manufacturers of artificial teeth holding Central Excise Licence in Form L-4 bearing No. BLS/II/NES/68/7185 dated 20th November, 1985. The appellant had filed a classification list No. 144/86 dated nil classifying their products “Artificial Teeth” under sub-heading 9021. 00 of Heading No. 90. 21 of Chapter No. 90 and had claimed exemption from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 71/86-CE., dated 10th February, 1986 as amended by Notification No. 164/86-CE., dated 1st March, 1986 at Item No. 11. The Assistant Collector held that the description given under sub-heading 9021. 00 of Heading 90. 21 of Chapter No. 90 as “Artificial Parts of the Body” correctly confirms the description, sub-heading No. 9021. 00 fixes the tariff rate at 15% and Notification No. 164/86-CE., dated 1st March, 1986 reduced the duty to nil rate only for the artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicapped. As per sub-heading 9021. 00 and its description artificial teeth is nothing but artificial part of the body. The Notification No. 164/86-CE, dated 1st March, 1986 gives exemptions only to those specific artificial parts of body which are in the nature of artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids that too for handicaps. The Assistant Collector was of the view that the appellant is manufacturing artificial teeth which is definitely not artificial limbs and was not called as rehabilitation aid for handicaps. He was of the view that teeth is an exo-skeletal part of human body like nails, hair etc. and teeth could not be compared with other compulsory parts of the human body without which the human system could not function. The use of artificial teeth could be replacing part or a beautification part or as remedial part to dention abnormalities but it could not be used as a rehabilitation part and the loss of teeth did not make a human being handicapped. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector had held that the goods fall under sub-heading 9021. 00 under Chapter 90 and had rejected the claim of the appellants for duty exemption under Notification No. 164/86-CE, dated 1st March, 1986.
2. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Assistant Collector, an appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals). He had observed that there was no doubt that the artificial teeth were nothing but artificial limbs which are transplanted in the denture of an individual when natural teeth come out or fall out but it was not something which was essential for the human body. The Collector (Appeals) had further observed that artificial teeth are more of cosmetic luxury than an essentiality for a human body. He had upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector and had rejected the appeal.
3. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Mr. Willingdon Christian, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has reiterated the contentions made in the appeal memo. He pleaded that the appellant manufactures artificial teeth and the period involved is 1st March, 1986 onwards. He has referred to Notification No. 71/86-CE. He has also referred to Collector (Appeals’) order. He had argued that a person is handicapped without teeth. He has referred to dictionary meaning of the word “limb” as per LEXICON WEBSTER DICTIONARY Vol. 1 page 553 1983 printing and has referred to the definition of the word “limb”. The said extract from the dictionary is reproduced below: –
“LIMB – one of the jointed appendages of the human or animal body, as an arm or leg. ”
Shri Willingdon Christian, the learned advocate argued that the product is an artificial limb. He argued that the finding of facts are not to be distinguished. In support of his argument, he has referred to the following judgments: –
(1) 1989 (20) ECC T-8 – Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum.
(2) AIR 1978 SC 851 – Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner
Shri Willingdon Christian argued that rehabilitation is of the natural nature. Alternatively, he pleaded that it is the rehabilitation of handicapped. He has also referred to the technical opinion of the following experts: –
(i) Government Dental College and Hospital, Bombay (page 30 of the paper book. )
(ii) Dr. B. Goverdhan Hegde, Principal and Professor and Head of the Department of Prosthetics, Dental College, Fort, Bangalore (page 31 of the paper book. )
(iii) Certificate from Principal-cum-Superintendent, Dr. R. Ahmed, Dental College and Hospital, Calcutta (page 32 of the paper book).
He has pleaded that these opinions were filed before the Collector (Appeals). He has also argued that the opinion of experts cannot be rejected. In support of his argument, he has referred to a judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Amaratara Industries reported in 1988 (18) ECR 94 (CEGAT SB). The learned advocate further argued that teeth are very essential for the body and without teeth we cannot lead a normal life. He also argued that in case the appellant’s plea is not accepted, alternatively, it is a settled law that in case where there is a doubt, the benefit of such doubt has to be given to the taxpayer. In support of his argument, he has referred to the following judgments: –
(i) 1982 (10) ELT 885 (Bom.) -Deccan Sales Corporation v. R. Parthasarthy and Ors.
(ii) AIR 1976 SC 1503 – Devon Brothers v. Central Bank.
(iii) 1986 (25) ELT 318 (Tribunal) – Indye Chemicals v. Collector of Central Excise.
He also filed the written arguments. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
5. Shri M. S. Arora, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, pleaded that the exemption notification has to be read with the tariff. In support of his argument, he has referred to a judgment in the case of J. K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in 1978 (2) ELT J 355. He has pleaded that the artificial limb cannot be equated with artificial teeth. He has referred to the definition of handicapped. He has relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.
6. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute as to the classification of the product, viz., artificial teeth. Artificial teeth fall under Heading 92. 00
7. Now coming to the benefit of Notification No. 164/86-C. E., dated 1st March, 1986, Serial No. 11 is reproduced below: –
“ARTIFICIAL LIMBS AND REHABILITATION AIDS FOR THE HANDICAPPED. ”
The appellant has relied on the definition of “limb”. In the LEXICON WEBSTER DICTIONARY Vol. I page 553, 1983 edition the definition of “limb” is given as under: –
“LIMB – one of the jointed appendages of the human or animal body, as an arm or leg. ”
The definition of “limb” as given in McGraw-Hill DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS, second edition is as under: –
“limb – An extremity or appendage used for locomotion or prehension, such as an arm or a leg. (ASTRON). The circular outer edge of a celestial body; the half with the greater altitude is called the upper limb, and the half with the lesser altitude, the lower limb. (BOT) A large primary tree branch. (DES ENG. ) 1. The graduated margin of an arc or circle in an instrument for measuring angles, as that part of a marine sextant carrying the altitude scale. 2. The graduated staff of a levelling rod. (GOEL) One of the two sections of an anticline or syncline on either side of the axis. Also known as flank. ”
The definition of “tooth” as given in the McGraw-Hill DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS, second edition, is as under: –
“tooth (ANAT) One of the hard bony structures supported by the jaws in mammals and by other bones of the mouth and pharynx in lower vertebrates serving principally for prehension and mastication. (DES ENG) 1. One of the regular projections on the edge or face of a gear wheel. 2.. An angular projection on a tool or other implement, such as a rake, saw, or comb. (GRAPHICS) 1. The coarse or abrasive quality of a paper or a painting ground that assists in the application of charcoal, pastels, or paint. 2. A paper texture that holds ink more readily. (INV ZOOL) Any of various sharp, horny, chitinous, or calcareous processes on or about any part of an invertebrate that functions like or resembles vertebrate jaws. ”
The definition of the word “limb” as given in NEW WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1981 edition page 553 is as under: –
“limb – One of the jointed appendages of the human or animal body, as an arm or leg; a large or main branch of a tree; a representative, branch, or member of a group or organization. ”
It is a settled law that the terms of the notification have to be construed strictly. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemraj Gordhandas v. H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat and Ors reported in 1978 (2) ELT J 350 has held as under: –
“It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any in-tendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. If the taxpayer is within the plain terms of an exemption he cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. In a Court of Law or Equality what the legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact either in express words or by reasonable or necessary implication. ”
8. Loss of teeth does not make a person handicapped and in view of the dictionary meanings reproduced above, teeth cannot be equated with artificial limb. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 164/86-C. E., dated 1st March, 1986 read with Notification No. 71/86-C. E., dated 10th February, 1986.
9. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.