Judgment:
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 30-8-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Kandla.
2. The appellants declared impugned goods as chain stitch Overedging Machine, Chainstitch Overedging and safety stitch machine, Class feed-off the arm industrial sewing machine, three needle chainstitch machine, essential spares. Addl. Collector held that catalogue of the machine describes the machine as interlock stitch machine against three needle chain stitch machine. He said such interlock stitch machines are not covered by any item mentioned in OGL Appendix 1 Part B S. No. 7 of Import Export Policy 1988-91. He also denied them the benefit of Notification No. 16/85 under S. No. 25.
3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Consultant submits that interlock machines and chainstitch machines are the same and in this connection, refers to the certificate from the manufacturer placed at Page 54 of the appeal papers. Even if it is presumed that chain stitch and interlock stitch machines are not the same, there are a number of entries both in OGL as well as Notification which would cover them. He placed strong reliance on S. No. 51 of the ITC and S. No. 92 of the Exemption Notification which exempts "High Speed Multiple Needle Sewing Machine". The same description also appears at S. No. 7(52) of the ITC Policy.
4. Ld. D.R. submits that if we go by the general description it would render Notification redundant in respect of other machines which are described in detail in the exemption Notification. He submits that the purpose of including large number of machines with specific functions was to ensure that only such machines as contributed to efficiency of textile industry were imported. Drawing attention to Government of India's Order dated 29-11-1979, he submits that there is distinction between chainstitch machine and interlock stitch machine.
5. We have heard both sides. Page 37 IS : 9152-1979 classify sewing machines into Principal Class according to stitch term. The sewing machines in Principal Class are again classified into secondary classes according to their use. The sewing machines in secondary class are further classified into Tertiary Class according to the shape of the bed. It defines lock stitch as referring to the stitch form whereby the needle thread is made to circle around the bobbin containing the bobbin thread to interlace the needle and bobbin threads. Chain stitch is defined as : "Refers to stitch form wherein the thread is passed through only from one side of material to form a chain like intralooped stitched." 6. It is clear, therefore, that there is a distinction between a chain stitch and a lock stitch. The distinction is illustrated as follows : "Even in the Principal Class of Lock Stitch, Secondary Class is Straight Stitch and Tertiary Class is Short Flat Bed. Similarly, in Multithread Chain Stitch as Principal Class, the Secondary Class is Hem stitch and Tertiary Class is Box type bed." This should make it clear that there is a distinction between chain stitch and lock stitch.
7. The question that however arise is, whether even while accepting that technically there is a distinction between two types of machines, whether ITC Policy and Exemption Notification cover both of the machines or only Chain stitch machine. It is argued by Ld. D.R. that interlock machines are not exempted by Notification nor are they indicated as freely importable items under OGL.
It was strongly argued by the Ld. Consultant that these machines are admittedly high speed multiple needle machines. Even assuming that they do not conform to machines with specific description given in the Notification like 2 or 3 needle chain stitch machine, high speed two needle lock stitch machines, these are nevertheless sewing machine.
Merely because specialised sewing machines are indicated against various Serial Numbers of the Exemption Notification would not have the effect of denying them this exemption if they are squarely covered under a broad description of a general heading.
8. We find considerable merit in this argument. The machines are admittedly of high speed; they have multiple needles numbering three and they are used for sewing purpose. S. No. 92 of the Notification reads : 9. To the extent that these machines conform to this description, we fail to understand how benefit of this notification against S. No. 92 can be denied to them. Merely because Notification exempts other sewing machines of special class would not mean that the machine which otherwise answers to the description of an item in the Notification would not be covered by it.
10. Ld. D.R. vehemently argued that it could not be the intention of the Legislature to provide an Entry which would cover a wide range of machines and yet, at the same time, indicate in detail special category of machines also. He also submits that the expression "Multiple" has not been defined and, in absence of definition, it may not be construed to be more than one, as pleaded by the Ld. Consultant. We are not able to pursuade ourselves that apprehension expressed about the expression "Multiple" by the Ld. D.R. is well-founded. As indicated earlier, we have to look at the plain meaning of the words in a Notification and while doing so "Multiple" can only be used in contradistinction to singular". For instance, Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology defines "Multiple spindle drilling machine as a drilling machine having two or more vertical spindles having simultaneous operation. Similarly, Multiple-spot scanning is defined as facsimile transmission in which image is divided into two or more sections which are scanned simultaneously." 11. We are afraid, it is a settled Principle of Construction that expressions used have to be given their plain meaning without bringing in any concept of legislative intent (See Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in case of Hemraj Gordhan Das v. Asstt. Collector of C.E. & Customs, Surat and Ors. -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350). This Tribunal in case of Indian Telephone Industry v. C.C., Madras - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 523 (Tribunal) held that we cannot ignore the plain wording of a Notification and go in search of any supposed contrary intention.
Bombay High Court in case of Apar Private Ltd. v. Union of India -1985 (22) E.L.T. 644 held : "In other words, the ordinary meaning of the word should be given effect to for the legislature could not have had the intention to mean otherwise. Where the Parliament being aware of the ordinary meaning of a word, expressly defines it in the interpretation clause of an enactment, differently from its ordinary meaning, it makes its intention manifest that the particular word or expression defined by it should be ordinarily understood. Otherwise the very purpose of defining a particular word or expression, the ordinary meaning of which is clear, would be defeated; the definition itself would become redundant...".
12. What we have said in regard to Notification will apply in case of ITC provisions also. High Speed Multiple Needle Sewing Machines are specifically indicated in Appendix 1 Part B under S. No. 51.
13. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.