{"id":176205,"date":"1989-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989"},"modified":"2015-05-28T23:42:29","modified_gmt":"2015-05-28T18:12:29","slug":"frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989","title":{"rendered":"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 689, \t\t 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 570<\/div>\n
Author: V I Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswami, V. (J) Ii<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFRICK INDIA LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/12\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V. (J) II\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V. (J) II\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  689\t\t  1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 570\n 1990 SCC  (1) 400\t  JT 1989  Supl.    432\n 1989 SCALE  (2)1417\n\n\nACT:\n    Central Excise Tariff Act--Item No. 29-A--Air Condition-\ning  and refrigeration equipment--Levy of excise duty  under\nClause (3) of Item 29A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant-company was engaged in the  manufacturing\nof  airconditioning  and  refrigeration\t equipment  under  a\nproper\tlicence. On January 21, 1970 the  appellant  cleared\nfrom  the factory cooling coils, condensers and\t compressors\nand  supplied the same to M\/s. Ravi Cold Storage,  Ahmedabad\nfor putting up a cold storage and paid duty of\tRs.13,547.20\nP in respect thereof. Again on January 21, 1969, the  appel-\nlant cleared from the factory various parts of refrigerating\nand  air-conditioning  appliances and machinery for  an\t Ice\nfactory\t plant\tto one M\/s.  Gujarat  Industrial  Investment\nCorporation   Ltd.,  Ahmedabad\tand  paid  a  duty  of\t Rs.\n19,336.87P.  Both the aforesaid goods were  manufactured  at\nthe appellant's factory. Thereafter the appellant filed\t two\nrefund\tapplications  of  the said excise  duty\t before\t the\nAssistant Collector of Customs, contending that the  refrig-\nerating\t and  air-conditioning\tappliances  which  they\t had\nremoved\t on  the aforesaid dates were  not  excisable  goods\nfailing under Tariff Item No. 29A(3). The Assistant  Collec-\ntor  of Customs rejected both the applications holding\tthat\nthe  assessment\t was correctly made.  The  appellant-company\npreferred  two appeals against these orders before the\tCol-\nlector\tof Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, who\tdis-\nmissed\tboth  the appeals. Thereupon the appellant  filed  a\nwrit  petition in the High Court. The learned  single  Judge\nwho  heard the petition dismissed the same holding that\t the\ngoods  supplied are parts of a refrigerating and  air-condi-\ntioning\t appliances, that a complete cold storage plant\t was\nnot  supplied to M\/s. Ravi Cold Storage, Ahmedabad  or\tM\/s.\nGujarat\t Industrial Investment Corporation  Ltd.,  Ahmedabad\nand  that  they\t would fail clearly within  the\t purview  of\nTariff sub-item (3) of Tariff Item 29-A. An appeal preferred\nagainst\t this judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench  in\nlimine. Hence this appeal.\nBefore\tthis Court also the appellant inter  alia  contended\nthat\n571\nthough in its sweep sub-item (3) may appear to cover all and\nevery part of refrigerating and air-conditioning  appliances\nand machinery of all sorts, the words \"and parts thereof\" in\nthe  heading controlled the meaning and restrict it  in\t the\ncontext\t only  to parts of a completed unit  which  as\tsuch\ncompleted  unit would have come under sub-items (1) and\t (2)\nof item 29-A.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  The legislative history and the notifications  of\nthe  Government\t show that sub-item (3) of item\t 29-A  is  a\ncomprehensive provision encompassing within it all sorts  of\nair-conditioning and refrigerating appliances and  machinery\nand  the  Government of India was issuing  notifications  of\nexemptions on the understanding that such parts are  covered\nby  sub-item (3). The language used in sub-item (3) is\talso\nwide  and comprehensive in its application and could not  be\ngiven  a restricted meaning. Sub-items (1), (2) and (3)\t are\nindependent of each other and mutually exclusive. The  scope\nof sub-item (3) is neither restricted nor controlled by\t the\nprovisions of sub-items (1) and (2). [576C-D]\n    Whether  the manufacturer supplies the refrigerating  or\nairconditioning appliances as a complete unit or not is\t not\nrelevant  for  the levy of duty on the\tparts  specified  in\nsub-item (3) of item 29-A. [576F-G]\n    Complete  plants which are covered by items (1) and\t (2)\ncannot be considered as parts of machinery and such complete\nplants would not be classifiable under sub-item (3) of\tItem\n29-A. [580B-C]\n    Mother  India  Refrigeration  Industries  Pvt.  Ltd.  v.\nSupdt.\tof  Central  Excise and Ors., [1980]  ELT  600\tAll,\noverruled.\n    Blue  Star Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.,<\/a>\t [1980]\t ELT\n280 Bom.; Joy Ice Cream, Bombay v. Union of India, [1989] 39\nELT  521  Bom.; Calicut Refrigeration Co.  v.  Collector  of\nCustoms\t & Central Excise, Cochin and Ors., [1982]  ELT\t 106\nKer.; Chhibramau Cold Storage v. CEGAT, [1989] ELT  161-AII;\nGoptal\tCold  Storage & Ice Factory v. Union  of  India\t and\nOrs.,<\/a>  [1985]  ELT 692-All and Anil Ice Factory\t &  Anr.  v.\nUnion  of India and Ors.,<\/a> [1984] ELT  333-Gujarat,  referred\nto.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3395  of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.6.1982 of the Punjab and
\n572<\/span>
\nHaryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 936 of 1982
\nShankar Das and H.K. Puri for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     A.K. Ganguli, R.P. Srivastava, P. Parameshwaran, Ms. A.
\nSubhashini and Dalip Sinha for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\tV. RAMASWAMI, J. The appellants are a public limited
\ncompany\t having a factory at Faridabad and engaged in  manu-
\nfacturing  air-conditioning and refrigeration  equipment  of
\nvarious\t kinds\tand  descriptions. They are  holding  a\t L-4
\nLicence\t to manufacture goods falling under Tariff Item\t No.
\n29A  of\t the Central Excise Tariff.  As\t per  classification
\nlists  submitted  from time to time under rule 173B  of\t the
\nCentral Excise Rules, 1944, the company had declared in Form
\nI that they are engaged in the manufacture of goods  falling
\nunder sub-items (2) and (3) of Tariff Item No. 29A.  Against
\ngate  pass Nos. 111, 112 and 113 dated January 21, 1970\t and
\ngate pass No. 116 dated January 22, 1970 the appellants\t had
\ncleared\t from  the  factory cooling  coils,  condensors\t and
\ncompressors  and  supplied the same for putting\t up  a\tcold
\nstorage plant to one M\/s Ravi Cold Storage, Ahmedabad. These
\nparts  were manufactured by the appellants in their  factory
\nat  Faridabad  and were cleared by them against\t the  above-
\nmentioned  gate\t passes\t after\tpayment of  a  duty  of\t Rs.
\n13.547.20 P. Against gate pass Nos. 95, 90, 97 and 98  dated
\nJanuary 21, 1969 the appellants had cleared from the factory
\nvarious\t parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning  appli-
\nances  and  machinery for an Ice-factory plant\tto  one\t M\/s
\nGujarat\t Industrial Investment Corporation Limited,  Ahmeda-
\nbad. These parts also were manufactured by the appellants in
\ntheir factory at Faridabad and were cleared by them  against
\ngate passes referred to above after payment of a duty of Rs.
\n19,336.87 P.\n<\/p>\n
     On the ground that parts of the refrigerating and\tair-
\nconditioning  appliances which they have removed  under\t the
\nabove said gate passes are not excisable goods falling under
\nTariff Item No. 29A(3), they filed two refund  applications.
\nThe  Assistant\tCollector  of Customs  rejected\t both  these
\napplications holding that the assessment was made correctly.
\nThe  appellants preferred two appeals agianst  these  orders
\nbefore the Collector of Customs and Central Excise,  Chandi-
\ngarh,  who by his common order dated December 20, 1971\tdis-
\nmissed\tthe appeals. Thereafter, the appellants\t filed\twrit
\npetition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at  Chandi-
\ngarh. This writ petition was
\n573<\/span>
\ndismissed  by a learned Single Judge holding that the  goods
\nsupplied  are parts of a refrigerating and  air-conditioning
\nappliances,  that  a  complete cold storage  plant  was\t not
\nsupplied to M\/s Ravi Cold Storage, Ahmedabad or M\/s  Gujarat
\nIndustrial  Investment Corporation Ltd. Ahmedabad, and\tthat
\nthey will fall clearly within the purview of Tariff sub-item
\n(3)  of Tariff Item 29-A. An appeal preferred  against\tthis
\njudgment was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench.
\n    In\torder  to  understand the argument  of\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  appellants, it is necessary\tto  set\t out
\nTariff Item 29-A in full at the relevant period, which reads
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
Item No. Tariff Description\t\t   Rate of Duty\n29A.\n    REFRIGERATING AND AIR-CONDITIONING\n<\/pre>\n
    APPLIANCES AND MACHINERY, ALL SORTS, AND PARTS THEREOF–
\n     (1)  Refrigerators and other refrigerat-\t Thirty
\n\t  ing appliances, which are ordinarily\t per cent
\n\t  sold or offered for sale as ready\t ad valorem
\n\t  assembled units, such as ice markers,
\n\t  bottle collers, display cabinets
\n\t  and water coolers.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  Air-conditioners and other air-     Thirty
\n\t  conditioning appliances, which      per cent
\n\t  are ordinarily sold or offered      ad valorem
\n\t  for sale as ready assembled
\n\t  units, including package type
\n\t  of air-conditioners and
\n\t  evaporative type of coolers.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)  Parts of refrigerating and\t    Forty\n\t  air-conditioning appliances\t    per cent\n\t  and machinery, all sorts.\t    ad valorem\n<\/pre>\n
    The\t argument of the learned counsel for the  appellants
\nwas  that sub-items (1) and (2) deal with refrigerators\t and
\nother  refrigerating  appliances  and  air-conditioners\t and
\nother  air-conditioning\t appliances respectively  which\t are
\nordinarily sold or offered for sale as a ready
\n4514<\/span>
\nassembled unit. Therefore, in order to bring it within\tsub-
\nitems  (1) and (2) such refrigerating  and  air-conditioning
\nappliances should be complete assembled units and they\tmust
\nalso  be ordinarily sold or offered for sale as\t such  ready
\nassembled  units. The illustrative examples referred  to  in
\nthe  two  sub-items make this clear according to  them.\t The
\ncold  storage  plant and ice-factory plant supplied  to\t the
\nfactories  concerned in this case as such are not such\tcom-
\nplete  assembled units which are ordinarily sold or  offered
\nfor  sale within the meaning of sub-items (1) and (2).\tFrom
\nthis premise they sought to interpret sub-item (3) as  mean-
\ning  that  the goods that are covered by that  sub-item\t are
\nparts of those refrigerating or air-conditioning  appliances
\nwhich  in its assembled form would have come as\t a  complete
\nunit under Tariff sub-items (1) and (2) of Item 29A and\t are
\nmanufactured for sale. In other words, they want to restrict
\nthe content of sub-item (3) with reference to the items that
\nmay fall under sub-items (1) and (2). The further submission
\nwas  that  though in its sweep sub-item (3)  may  appear  to
\ncover all and every part of refrigerating and air-condition-
\ning  appliances and machinery of all sorts, the\t words\t“and
\nparts  therefore” in the heading controlled the meaning\t and
\nrestrict it in the context only to parts of a completed unit
\nwhich as such completed unit would have come under sub-items
\n(1) and (2) of Item 29A. In this connection, learned counsel
\nhas  referred to certain decisions of the High Courts  which
\nwe will refer to later.\n<\/p>\n
    By\tFinance Act of 1961 Item 29A and 40 were  introduced
\nin  the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt\tAct,
\n1944 and those two entries read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “29A. AIR CONDITIONING MACHI-   Twenty
\n      NERY, ALL SORTS.\t\t      per cent
\n\t\t\t\t      ad valorem.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n      40. REFRIGERATORS AND PARTS   Twenty\n      THEREOF. SUCH AS ARE\t    per cent\n      SPECIALLY DESIGNED FOR USE    ad valorem.\"\n      WITH REFRIGERATORS.\n<\/pre>\n
The Notes on Clauses relating to the relevant clause in\t the
\nFinance\t Bill  10 of 1961 stated that Item 29A\tproposes  to
\nlevy  an excise duty on air-conditioning machinery and\tItem
\n40  proposes  to levy an excise duty  on  refrigerators\t and
\n“parts thereof.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By the Finance Act 2 of 1962 a combined tariff entry in\t the
\nform
\n575<\/span>
\nprevailing in 1969 and 1970 was introduced and the Notes  on
\nClauses relating to this amendment stated that the  proposal
\nis  “to combine into one item the present tariff  items\t 29A
\nand 40 relating to ‘Air-conditioning Machinery’ and ‘Refrig-
\nerators’ respectively as well as to make it more  comprehen-
\nsive.”\tUnder the Government of India, Ministry of  Finance,
\nDepartment  of Revenue, Notification No.  80\/62-Central\t Ex-
\ncises,\tdated  24th April, 1962 as subsequently\t amended  by
\nNotifications  dated 29th December, 1962, 23rd\tMarch,\t1968
\nand  14th  June, 1969 all parts of  refrigerating  and\tair-
\nconditioning appliances and machinery other than the “parts”
\nmentioned below were exempt from the payment of excise\tduty
\nleviable thereon:\n<\/p>\n
“(i) Cooling coils or evaporator\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Compressor\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Condenser\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Thermostat\n<\/p>\n
       (v) Cooling unit, and in the case of absorption types
\nof  refrigerators  in which there is no\t compressor,  heater
\nincluding Burners and Baffles in a Kerosene Operated absorp-
\ntion type refrigerator.\n<\/p>\n
      (vi)  Starting  Relay, controls  (including  expansion
\nvalue and solenoid valves) and pressure switches\n<\/p>\n
(vii) Overload Protection\/Thermal Relay\n<\/p>\n
(viii) Cabinet.”\n<\/p>\n
There  are  a number of other notifications  also  exempting
\nparts  of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances\t and
\nmachinery,  intended to be used for various purposes  speci-
\nfied in the notifications, such as, use in refrigerating and
\nair-conditioning appliances or machinery which are installed
\nor to be installed in any of the following establishments:
\n“1.  Computer rooms.  2. Research and test laboratories\t  3.
\nAnimal\thouses\t 4.  Telephone\texchanges   5.\tBroadcasting
\nstudios\t  6.  Trawlers\t7. Dams\t 8. Mines  and\ttunnels\t  9.
\nThermal and hydel power stations  10.\n<\/p>\n
576<\/span><\/p>\n
Technical buildings of Military Engineering Service 11.\t Any
\nHospital  run  by the Central Government, a State  Govt.,  a
\nLocal Authority or a Public Charitable Institution and\t 12.
\nAny factory.”\n<\/p>\n
Vide  the Notification No. 93\/76-CE dated  16.3.1976  issued
\nunder  subitem (3) of Item 29A of the First Schedule.  there
\nare  various other notifications also issued under the\tsame
\nsub-item  which\t covers installation  of  air-condition\t and
\nrefrigerating equipments of almost all categories.
\n    The\t legislative  history and the notifications  of\t the
\nGovernment  show that sub-item (3) of Item 20A is a  compre-
\nhensive\t provision encompassing within it parts of all\tsons
\nof air-conditioning and refrigerating appliances and machin-
\nery and the Government of India was issuing notifications of
\nexemptions on the understanding that such parts are  covered
\nby  sub-item (3). The language used in sub-item (3) is\talso
\nwide  and comprehensive in its application and could not  be
\ngiven  a restricted meaning. Sub-items (1), (2) and (3)\t are
\nindependent of each other and mutually exclusive. The  scope
\nof sub-item (3) is neither restricted nor controlled by\t the
\nprovisions of sub-items (1) and (2).\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis well-settled that the headings prefixed  to\tsec-
\ntions  or  entries  cannot control the plain  words  of\t the
\nprovision;  they cannot also be referred to for the  purpose
\nof  construing\tthe  provision when the words  used  in\t the
\nprovision  are clear and unambiguous; nor can they  be\tused
\nfor  cutting  down  the plain meaning of the  words  in\t the
\nprovision.  Only,  in  the case of ambiguity  or  doubt\t the
\nheading\t or  sub-heading  may be referred to as\t an  aid  in
\nconstruing  the provision but even in such a case  it  could
\nnot  be\t used for cutting down the wide application  of\t the
\nclear words used in the provision. Sub-item (3) so construed
\nis  wide in its application and all parts  of  refrigerating
\nand  air-conditioning appliances and machines  whether\tthey
\nare covered or not covered under sub-items (1) and (2) would
\nbe  clearly covered under that sub-item. Therefore,  whether
\nthe  manufacturer supplied the refrigerating  or  air-condi-
\ntioning appliances as a complete unit or not is not relevant
\nfor the levy of duty on the parts specified in sub-item\t (3)
\nof Item 29A.\n<\/p>\n
    Strong  reliance was placed by the learned\tcounsel\t for
\nappellants  on the decision of the Allahabad High  Court  in
\nMother\tIndia Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. v.  Superin-
\ntendent\t of  Central Excise & Ors., [1980] ELT 600  All.  In
\nthat case the writ petitioners were the owners
\n577<\/span>
\nOf  a  old storage plant. The  writ  petitioners  themselves
\ninstalled and assembled the cold storage plant. Part of\t the
\nplant consisted of erecting locally what are called  cooling
\ncoils and condensers. Generally cooling coils and condensers
\ncontain\t a  very long length of pipes made in  a  particular
\nshape.\tThe petitioners in that case, however, bought  pipes
\nof  various  lengths, erected them one after the  other\t and
\njoined one with the other with a ‘U’ shape bend. These bends
\nwere  welded. The result was that the various pipes  consti-
\ntuted an unit indesigning the plant. This part of the  plant
\nwas  necessary in order to pass the cooling gas\t through  it
\nand thereby cool the chambers of the storage. The  petition-
\ners  bought the pipes and the bends from the market and\t got
\nthem  placed  at the factory site and got them\twelded.\t The
\ndepartment,  in\t the view that the conglomeration  of  pipes
\nmanufactured  by the petitioner, constituted manufacture  of
\ncooling\t coils\twhich are parts of  refrigerating  and\tair-
\nconditioning appliances and machinery covered by Item 29A(3)
\ncalled upon the petitioners to pay excise duty on its value.
\nAll the authorities found that the erection and installation
\nby  the\t petitioners, by laying pipes and  joining  them  by
\nwelded\tbends, amounted to the manufacture of cooling  coils
\nand  condensers\t as known to refrigeration  technology.\t The
\nHigh  Court accepted these findings. However, it  held\tthat
\nparts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances which
\nanswer the description given in sub-items (1) and (2)  alone
\nare liable to duty under Entry 29A(3) and not all parts used
\nin refrigeration technology. The learned judges reached this
\nconclusion on the grounds that:\n<\/p>\n
“The heading of Entry 29A makes it clear that only parts  of
\nsuch  refrigerating  and  air-conditioning  appliances\t and
\nmachinery  as are covered by sub-entries (1) and  (2)  alone
\nare  liable to duty. In other words, the parts\tin  question
\nshould be such as are ordinarily sold or offered for sale as
\nready.\tassembled  units. On any  other\t interpretation\t the
\nwords ‘thereof’ occurring in the heading 29A will be  redun-
\ndant.  An interpretation which makes any part of  a  statute
\nredundant has to be discarded.”\n<\/p>\n
and that
\n“When  an  entry in the schedule specifically refers to\t and  re-
\nstricts\t the applicability of duty to goods which  are\tassembled
\nunits  and which are generally offered for sale, the  concept  of
\nsale  is necessarily brought in. As already seen,  sub-entry  (3)
\ntakes  it  colour  from sub-entries (1) and (2)\t because  of  the
\nspecific  directive  of\t the heading by using  the  words  ‘parts
\nthereof’.”\n<\/p>\n
578<\/span><\/p>\n
We are afraid that both these reasons are fallacious and not
\nacceptable.  As already stated neither can sub-entry (3)  be
\nsaid  to  take its colour from sub-entries (1) and  (2)\t nor
\ncould those sub-entries or heading curtail the plain meaning
\nof the words used in sub-entry (3). We, therefore, hold that
\nthe Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. v. Supdt.
\nof  Central  Excise  & Ors. ‘s, case  (supra),\twas  wrongly
\ndecided\t and accordingly we overrule the same.\tThe  learned
\nJudges\thave also relied on a Tariff Advice dated  September
\n30,  1969  given under the Customs Act for  the\t purpose  of
\nlevying\t countervailing duty. We shall deal with this  ques-
\ntion when we consider that Tariff Advice in a latter part of
\nthis judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    The decisions of the Bombay High Court in Blue Star Ltd.
\nv.  Union of India & Anr.,<\/a> [1980] ELT 280 Bom. and  Joy\t Ice
\nCream,\tBombay\tv. Union of India, [1989] 39 ELT  521  Bom.,
\nrelated\t to  the scope of Tariff item 29A(1)  and  not\tItem
\n29A(3)\twith  which we are concerned. In the  view  we\thave
\ntaken  that  sub-entries  (1) and (2) of  Entry\t 29A  cannot
\ncontrol or restrict the meaning of such entry (3) it is\t not
\nnecessary  for us to go into the scope of Entry 29A (1)\t and
\n(2). These decisions, therefore, are no relevance.
\n    The decision of the Kerala High Court in Calicut Refrig-
\neration Co. v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Cochin
\n&  Ors., [1982] ELT 106 Ker., also does not touch  upon\t the
\nquestion  with which we are concerned. The decision  of\t the
\nAllahabad  High Court in Chhibramau Cold Storage  v.  CEGAT,
\n[1989] ELT 161 All. and Goptal Cold Storage & Ice Factory v.
\nUnion of India & Ors.,<\/a> [1985] ELT 692 All., simply  followed
\nthe  decision in Mother India Refrigeration  Industries\t (P)
\nLtd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise & Ors., (supra) and, there-
\nfore, they do not advance the case any further.
\n    On\tthe  other hand, we have a decision of\tthe  Gujarat
\nCourt  in Anil Ice Factory & Anr. v. Union of India &  Ors.,<\/a>
\n[1984] ELT 333 Guj., wherein M.P. Thakkar, Chief Justice, as
\nhe  then was, referred to the Allahabad High Court  judgment
\nand dissenting from it held:\n<\/p>\n
“On  taking  a close look at Item 29A it will be  seen\tthat
\nwhat  is printed at the top of the entry as “caption”  indi-
\ncates the nature of the goods covered by the entry. It\tdoes
\nnot more than indicate what is the nature of the goods which
\nare  specified in the said entry. Cls. (1), (2) and (3)\t are
\nindependent  of\t each other. Clause (3) in terms  refers  to
\ngoods which fall within the description of the said entry,
\n579<\/span>
\nnamely,\t “Parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appli-
\nances  and  machinery, all sorts”. It is not  disputed\tthat
\ncooling coils and condensers would fall within the  category
\nof  “appliances and machinery”. Counsel however argues\tthat
\nwe must first read the scope of cl. (1) and cl. (2) and draw
\nan inference therefrom that the goods covered by entry, will
\nattract excise duty only provided they are manufactured\t for
\nsale.  We see no valid reason for reading the entry in\tthat
\nmanner.\t Each of the three sub-clauses referes to  different
\nentries and specifies different rates of duty for the  goods
\nfalling within the respective entries.”\n<\/p>\n
and that
\n“As we indicated earlier, in the first place the purpose  of
\nthe caption is to provide a clue to the nature of the  goods
\nwhich  are covered by the entry. But even otherwise  if\t the
\ncaption is read in the manner in which it has been worded it
\ndoes not justify or warrant an inference that it related  to
\ngoods which are manufactured for the purpose of sale.  Entry
\n29A  adverts  to goods which would fall within\tone  or\t the
\nother  of the three classifications specified  therein.\t The
\ndescription  of each category of goods if clearly  mentioned
\nin  col.  (2).\tSo far as CI. (3) is  concerned\t the  tariff
\ndescription is “parts of refrigerating and  air-conditioning
\nappliances   and  machinery”.  We  cannot  read\t the   words
\n‘manufactured  for sale’ in entry No. 3 by drawing upon\t the
\ntheory of “Taking colour” which has no application in a case
\nlike  the present one. If we inject these words we would  be
\nre-writing this section and we would be legislating which we
\ncannot do.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned counsel for the appellants then  relied  on
\nthe  Trade  Advice dated 30th September, 1969 given  by\t the
\nCentral\t Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, in  respect
\nof classification of refrigerating machinery and ice  making
\nplant which are not sold or offered for sale as ready assem-
\nbled  unit  for purposes of countervailing  duty  under\t the
\nCustoms\t Act.  After referring to sub-items (1) and  (2)  of
\nItem  29A as covering complete plant and equipment  which  a
\nre-ordinarily  sold or offered for sale as  ready  assembled
\nunits,\thad  stated as follows, with reference\tto  sub-item
\n(3):\n<\/p>\n
“Sub-item (3) of item 29A of the Central Excise Tariff
\n580<\/span>
\nrefers\tto parts or’ machinery and appliances  and  complete
\nplants\twhich cannot be considered as “parts  of  machinery”
\nwould  not  be classifiable under sub-item (3) to  item\t 29A
\nC.E.T. also.”\n<\/p>\n
As may be seen from this paragraph it consists of two parts,
\nthe first portion referring to parts of machinery and appli-
\nances  and the second portion referring to  complete  plants
\nwhich cannot be considered as parts of machinery. The  whole
\nargument  arose\t because of the composite sentence  used  in
\nthis  paragraph.  It only means complete  plants  which\t are
\ncovered\t by Items (1) and (2) cannot be considered as  parts
\non  machinery and such complete plants would not be  classi-
\nfiable\tunder sub-item (3) of Item 29A. The reliance  placed
\nby the learned counsel on this notification does not in\t any
\nway advance the case of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    In the foregoing circumstances, the appeal fails and  it
\nis dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y.    Lal\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n581<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 689, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 570 Author: V I Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, V. (J) Ii PETITIONER: FRICK INDIA LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/12\/1989 BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFrick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-28T18:12:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-28T18:12:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989\"},\"wordCount\":2997,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989\",\"name\":\"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-28T18:12:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-28T18:12:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989","datePublished":"1989-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-28T18:12:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989"},"wordCount":2997,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989","name":"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-28T18:12:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/frick-india-ltd-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-21-december-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Frick India Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=176205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}