{"id":222041,"date":"1988-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988"},"modified":"2018-03-31T11:55:58","modified_gmt":"2018-03-31T06:25:58","slug":"asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988","title":{"rendered":"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1087, \t\t 1988 SCR (3) 339<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nASIAN PAINTS INDIA LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/03\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nRANGNATHAN, S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1087\t\t  1988 SCR  (3) 339\n 1988 SCC  (2) 470\t  JT 1988 (2)\t  8\n 1988 SCALE  (1)628\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1991 SC 999\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\n     Central Excise  and  Salt\tAct,  1944-Section  35L\t and\nTariff Item  Nos. 14(1)(3)(iv)\tand 14\t(1)(v) of  the First\nSchedule-Classification for  purpose of\t excise levy-Whether\n\"Decoplast\" is\tplastic emulsion  paint-Resort to be made to\nthe commercial\tand popular meaning attached to the items by\nthose  dealing\tin  them-Not  to  scientific  and  technical\nmeaning.\n     Statutory Construction-Excise  Act-Sales tax Act-Tariff\nItems  not  defined-Interpretation  of-To  be  construed  in\npopular sense-Commercial meaning attached to items by people\nwho deal in them to be given.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     The question  as to whether \"Decoplast\" manufactured by\nthe appellant  is plastic  emulsion paint  or not  had\tbeen\ndetermined in  the affirmative\tby the Revenue, and revision\napplication before the Government of India was rejected.\n     Thereafter the  appellant moved  the Bombay High Court,\nwhich  directed\t  the  Customs\tExcise\tand  Gold  (Control)\nAppellate Tribunal  to hear  the petition  and to decide the\nsame as\t an appeal  before it.\tOn behalf  of the appellant,\nelaborate evidence  had been  adduced before  the  Tribunal.\nReference was made to the specifications of plastic emulsion\npaint and  the definition  as given  by\t ISI.  The  Tribunal\naddressed itself  to the  question whether \"Decoplast\" could\nbe considered as plastic emulsion paint having regard to (i)\nits composition;  (ii) its  characteristics; (iii)  its uses\nand (iv)  its reputation  in trade  parlance, and  held that\n\"Decoplast\" is a plastic emulsion paint.\n     Aggrieved by  the order  the appellant  appealed  under\nSection 35L of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 to this\nCourt, which.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1.1 The commercial meaning has to be given to the\nexpressions in\tTariff items. Where definition of a word has\nnot been given, it\n340\nmust be\t construed in its popular sense. Popular sense means\nthat sense  which people  conversant with the subject-matter\nwith which  the statute\t is dealing,  would attribute to it.\n[343G]\n     1.2 In  the instant case the use of these two items and\ntheir composition,  when analysed,  revealed that in essence\nthey performed\tthe same functions as plastic emulsion paint\ndoes,  though\tthere  was  some  difference  in  them.\t The\naffidavits of  traders\tand  others  were  examined  by\t the\nTribunal. The  Revenue did  not adduce evidence in rebuttal.\nTherefore, in view of the composition, characteristics, uses\nand how\t it is\tknown in the trade, the Tribunal came to the\nconclusion that \"Decoplast\" was plastic emulsion paint. This\nis a  finding of  fact arrived\tat  on\trelevant  and  valid\nmaterials. There was no misdirection in law. [344C-E]\n     2. In  interpreting items\tin statutes  like the Excise\nAct or\tSales Tax  Act, resort\tshould be  had, not  to\t the\nscientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions\nused, but  to the  popular meaning,  that  is  to  say,\t the\nmeaning\t attached   to\tthem   by  those  dealing  in  them.\n[343H; 344A-B]\n     C.l. T.,  Andhra  Pradesh\tv.  M\/s.  Taj  Mahal  Hotel,\nSecunderabad<\/a>  [1972]   1  SCR  168  and\t Indo  International\nIndustries v.  Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.,<\/a> [1981] 3 SCR\n294,referred to.\n     King v.  Planter's Co.  [1951] CLR\t (Ex.) 122  and 'Two\nHundred Chests of Tea', [1824]6 L.Ed. 128, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2456 of
\n1987.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Order dated  27.5.1987 of  the Customs Excise
\nand Gold  (Control) Appellate  Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal
\nNo. E-2312\/85-C.\n<\/p>\n
     K.K. Venugopal, R. Narain, S. Ganesh, R. Shah, R.K. Ram
\nand D.N. Mishra for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,  J. In  this appeal  under section
\n35L of\tthe Central  Excise and\t Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter
\ncalled\t‘the   Act’),  the   question  involved\t is  whether
\n“Decoplast” manufactured by the Asian Paints India Ltd., the
\nappellant herein, is plastic emulsion paint
\n341<\/span>
\nand, therefore,\t classifiable under Tariff Item 14(I)(3)(iv)
\nof the\tFirst Schedule\tof the Act as plastic emulsion paint
\nor it  should be classifiable under Tariff Item No. 14(I)(v)
\nthat is as “paints not otherwise specified”.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Customs   Excise  and\t  Gold\t(Control)  Appellate
\nTribunal (hereinafter  called ‘the  CEGAT’), by the impugned
\norder challenged  in this  appeal  held\t that  Decoplast  is
\nplastic\t emulsion   paint.  The\t  appellant  felt  aggrieved
\nthereby. In  so holding the Technical Member of the Tribunal
\nobserved that  in view\tof its\tcomposition, characteristics
\nand uses,  Decoplast should be considered as emulsion paint.
\nThe Judicial Member of the Tribunal was of the view that the
\nRevenue had  not adduced  any evidence\tof rebuttal  of\t the
\nevidence  adduced   by\tthe   appellant\t as  the  commercial
\nunderstanding but  the evidence adduced by the appellant was
\nintrinsically  untrustworthy.\tTherefore,  inspite  of\t the
\naffidavits and\tabsence of  evidence in\t rebuttal, he agreed
\nwith the  other member\tthat Decoplast\tis plastic  emulsion
\npaint  and   the  appeal   before  the\tTribunal  should  be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that  the  appellants\thad  filed  revision
\napplication before the Government of India against the order
\nof  the\t  Revenue  authorities.\t Ultimately,  the  same\t was
\nrejected by  the Government of India. It is not necessary to
\nset out\t in detail  all the  events. The appellant had moved
\nthe High Court of Bombay against the order of the Government
\nof India  and the  High\t Court\tby  its\t order\tdirected  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The order dated 17th December, 1979 passed by the
\n\t  Govt. Of  India in  revision in  the\tPetitioners’
\n\t  case\tis   set  aside\t inasmuch  as  the  Revision
\n\t  Authorities have  not controverted or rebutted the
\n\t  evidence in  the form\t of affidavits\trelied on by
\n\t  the Petitioners  to show  that their product could
\n\t  not  be  regarded  as\t a  plastic  emulsion  paint
\n\t  amongst persons  dealing  in\tsuch  products.\t The
\n\t  Revision order  thus failed  to  follow  the\twell
\n\t  established rule  of interpreting  entries in\t the
\n\t  Excise Tariff namely to classify products by their
\n\t  common parlance and trade understanding and not by
\n\t  their\t scientific  or\t technical  meaning.  It  is
\n\t  necessary that  the  matter  be  remanded  to\t the
\n\t  Revision Authorities\tto decide  the\tsame  afresh
\n\t  according  to\t  law.\tHowever,   as  the  Revision
\n\t  Authority under  the demanded\t Central Excise\t and
\n\t  Salt Act  has been  replaced by the Customs Excise
\n\t  and Gold  (Control) Appellate\t Tribunal, the\tsaid
\n\t  Tribunal is directed to
\n342<\/span>
\n\t  hear the  Petitioners’ Revision  Petition  and  to
\n\t  determine the\t same as  an appeal  before it.\t The
\n\t  Tribunal shall  give an  opportunity to  both\t the
\n\t  petitioners and  the Excise Authorities to rely on
\n\t  any evidence\tand material  either  on  record  or
\n\t  otherwise  which  they  may  lead  or\t produce  in
\n\t  support of  their case.  The parties will be given
\n\t  full opportunity  of affidavits  if any during the
\n\t  hearing”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In pursuance  to the said order, the matter came before
\nthe Tribunal. Before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf
\nof the\tappellant that\tthe manufacture\t was water  thinable
\npaint but  the same could not be held to be plastic emulsion
\npaint for  the product was not known in the trade as plastic
\nemulsion paint\tnor was\t it bought and sold so. According to
\nthe appellant,\tthe paint  essentially comprised  of pigment
\nand a  binder or a vehicle and that while the binder and the
\nvehicle were  interchangeable, it was stated that the binder
\ngenerally referred  to solid  part which  in this  case\t was
\nsynthetic resin and the solvent could be water or some other
\ndiluent. There\twas elaborate  evidence adduced\t before\t the
\nTribunal on  behalf of\tthe appellant. Reference was made to
\nthe specifications  of plastic\temulsion paint\tas given  by
\nISI. It\t was contended\ton  behalf  of\tthe  appellant\tthat
\nDecoplast could\t not be considered as plastic emulsion paint
\nfor reasons, inter alia, as follow:\n<\/p>\n
\t  i)   Plastic\temulsion   paint  comprises  of\t one
\n\t       emulsion\t as   against\ttwo   contained\t  in
\n\t       Decoplast;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  ii)  In the  case of plastic emulsion drying takes
\n\t       place by evap oration of water whereas in the
\n\t       case of decoplast by oxidation of alkyd;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  iii) Trade  did not recognise decoplast as plastic
\n\t       emulsion paint;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  iv)  In  the\t literature   published\t  by   them,
\n\t       decoplast  was\tnot  described\t as  plastic
\n\t       emulsion paint;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  v)   Decoplast was substitute for cement paint;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  vi)  Even though  decoplast could be used both for
\n\t       interior and  exterior use,  it was a product
\n\t       inferior to plastic emulsion paint;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  vii) In case of plastic emulsion paint, primer had
\n\t       to be  applied to  The surface  to be  pained
\n\t       while in the case of Decoplast on
\n343<\/span>
\n\t       coating\ton  Decoplast  itself  serves  as  a
\n\t       primer. A
\n     In support\t of appellant’s\t contention, affidavits\t had
\nbeen filed  by them  and the same were considered in extenso
\nby the\tTribunal. Reference  has also  been made to the Book
\n“Outlines of  Paint Technology” by W.M. Morgan. On the other
\nhand, on  behalf of  the Revenue,  it was stated that it was
\nnot disputed  that Decoplast  is a  water soluble  paint and
\nthat it had got two resins in emulsion form, namely, Polymer
\nVinyle Acetate\tand copolymer alkyds. Attention was drawn to
\nthe  Indian  Standard  Specification  for  plastic  emulsion
\npaint, which is as follow:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tmaterial  shall\t consist  of  pigments\twith
\n\t  suitable extenders  in suitable  proportions, in a
\n\t  medium consisting  of any  state synthetic polymer
\n\t  emulsion in  water with other suitable ingredients
\n\t  as may  be necessary to produce a material so also
\n\t  satisfy the requirements of this standard. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Our attention was also drawn to the definition given by
\nISI, which is as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Generally, a\t paint in  which the  medium  is  an
\n\t  ’emulsion’ or\t an emulsion-like  dispersion of  an
\n\t  organic binder  in water. Industrially the same is
\n\t  mainly restricted  to those  paints in  which\t the
\n\t  medium is  an ’emulsion’ of a synthetic resin. The
\n\t  medium may  also be called a latex by analogy with
\n\t  a natural  rubber latex, polyvinyl acetat emulsion
\n\t  paint is a typical example”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Tribunal  addressed itself  to the question whether
\nDecoplast could\t be considered\tas plastic emulsion paint in
\nview of (i) its composition; (ii) its characteristics; (iii)
\nits uses; and (iv) its reputation in trade parlance.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  well settled  that the commercial meaning has to
\nbe  given   to\tthe   expressions  in  Tariff  items.  Where
\ndefinition of  a  word\thas  not  been\tgiven,\tit  must  be
\nconstrued in  its popular  sense. Popular  sense means\tthat
\nsense which  people conversant\twith the subject-matter with
\nwhich the  Statute is  dealing, would  attribute to it. See-
\nC.I.T.,\t Andhra\t  Pradesh   v.\t M\/s.\tTaj   Mahal   Hotel,
\nSecunderabad,<\/a> [1972]  1 SCR 168. This Court observed in Indo
\nInternational Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.,<\/a>
\n[1981] 3 SCR 294 that in interpreting items in statutes like
\nthe Excise Act or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object
\n344<\/span>
\nwas to\traise revenue  and for\twhich  purpose\tto  classify
\ndiverse products,  articles and substances, resort should be
\nhad, not  to the  scientific and  technical meaning  of\t the
\nterms or expressions used but to their popular meaning, that
\nis to  say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
     Justice Cameron of the Canadian Exchequer Court in King
\nv. Planter’s  Co., [1951]  CLR (Ex.) 122 and the decision of
\nthe United  States Supreme  Court in  ‘Two Hundred Chests of
\nTea’,  [1824]\t6  L.Ed.   128\temphasised  that  commercial
\nunderstanding in  respect of  the  tariff  items  should  be
\npreferred. It  was observed  that the  legislature does\t not
\nsuppose our  merchants to  be naturalists  or geologists, or
\nbotanists.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  case the\tuse of\tthese two  items  and  their
\ncomposition when  analysed, revealed  that in  essence\tthey
\nperformed the same functions as plastic emulsion paint does,
\nthough there  was some\tdifference in  them.  Affidavits  of
\ntraders and  others had\t been filed. These were examined and
\naccepted by the Technical Member and these were not rejected
\nby the\tJudicial Member.  The Revenue  did  not\t adduce\t any
\nevidence in rebuttal. Therefore, in view of the composition,
\ncharacteristics, user  and how it is known in the trade, the
\nTribunal came  to the  conclusion that Decoplast was plastic
\nemulsion paint.\t This is  a finding  of fact  arrived at  on
\nrelevant and  valid materials.\tThere was no misdirection in
\nlaw. Therefore, there is no ground for interference with the
\nsaid order.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  aforesaid view  of the  matter, we\t decline  to
\nentertain the  appeal under  section 35L  of  the  Act.\t The
\nappeal is, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n345<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1087, 1988 SCR (3) 339 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: ASIAN PAINTS INDIA LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/03\/1988 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) […]<\/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-222041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAsian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988 - 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\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-31T06:25:58+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-31T06:25:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1499,\"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\\\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988\",\"name\":\"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-31T06:25:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988 - 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\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-31T06:25:58+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988","datePublished":"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-31T06:25:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988"},"wordCount":1499,"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\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988","name":"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-31T06:25:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asian-paints-india-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-23-march-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Asian Paints India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1988"}]},{"@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\/222041","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=222041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222041\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}