NANDITA AGARWAL

INTERPRETATION OF STATUES
PRN 20010224188
DIVISION C
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. RULE OF INTERPRETATION AS USED IN THE CASE

2. MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE
3. LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED
4. ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT
5. RATIO AND ANALYSIS
6. CONCLUSION

SIDDESHWARI COTTON MILLS (P) LTD V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

(1989) 2 SCC 458

1
 I. RULE OF INTERPRETATION BEEN USED IN THE CASE

The Supreme Court in the following case has made the use of ejusdem generis rule so in order to
figure out what the words "any other process" mean with respect to the Central Excise and Salt
Act, 1944, section 2(f) along with Notification Numbers 231 and 230 from 1977 July 15. After
the specific words “bleaching, mercerizing, dying, printing, water-proofing, rubberizing, shrink-
proofing, and organic processing”, this more general word came. The Court determined that "the
specific phrases form a class of processes that suggest a change that is permanent in nature"
using the ejusdem generis rule. Therefore, "any other word" must be connected to that event 1 or
process

B. MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant was a corporation that used power looms to make cotton textiles and claimed that
they were exempt from paying excise duty. The appellant was found to have violated the law by
the Central Excise authorities when it was discovered that they had manufactured and sold
calendered cotton fabric that fell under item 19-l(b) of the Act's First Schedule without paying
the appropriate amount of excise tax. In accordance with rule 173-Q, the Collector of Central
Excise in Calcutta issued the appellant a warning and a one million rupee fine before ordering
him to pay the payment. The appellant won some points with the Central Board of Excise and
Customs since they partially agreed with their argument. The appellant filed an appeal with the
Appellate-Tribunal challenging the decision to confirm the levy and duty. According to the order
issued by the Tribunal on March 16, 1984, which is being challenged in the present proceeding,
the appeal was rejected.

1
Vibhanshi Shakya, All you need to know about the doctrine of ejusdem generis, IPLEADERS (August 18, 2022,
4:34 PM)

2
 C. LEGAL ISSUES INVOVED IN THE CASE

The main issue in this case was, if cotton cloth is calendered, does it lose its status as
"unprocessed" cotton fabric?

This instance is linked to and is founded on the Ejusdem Generis rule of interpretation, which
means "of the same KIND / GENE."

D. ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PARTIES TO THE CASE

CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT

It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the "plain calendering" process does not add
anything to cotton fabric and does not produce a lasting effect; rather, it only produces a
temporary finish. Additionally, it was argued that given the nature of the process. It was
additionally argued that the given nature of process, it is evident that the fabric has not received
either of the two ingredients needed to classify the process as one of the families of processes
envisioned by the previous expressions.

According to the appellant's legal counsel, the straightforward and typical procedure of
calendering neither changes the look of the cotton fibre in any way nor gives the type of cotton
fibre used a new texture.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

It was argued on behalf of the Revenue (Respondent) that the matter should be remitted to the
Tribunal since it had not particularly looked into this aspect and recorded its finding on it.

3
 E. ANALYSIS DRAWN DOWN FROM THE CASE

A. Ratio & Analysis

Ejusdem generis, which means "of the same kind or nature," denotes a constructional principle
that gives words in a statute that are otherwise broad but are associated in the text with more
restricted words a restricted operation and limits them to things that belong to the same class or
genus as those that came before them. The linguistic implications and verbal context of the
words that come before such phrases limit their applicability when they follow a list, string, or
family of terms that describe genus. However, the previous words or statements must be able to
convey the sense that they designate a class. Ejusdem-generis rule is not attracted in the absence
of a class and favours any expansive meaning that the subsequent words may allow.

According to UPSE Board v. Hari Shanker2, Ejusdem generis is a legal principle that states that
terms of a general nature are to be considered as being limited to things that are of the same
nature as those that are described.

The phrase "any other processes" appears in the language of Section 2(f)(v), and it relates to all
of the many kinds of methods that are mentioned in the act. Calendering was included due to the
fact that it is in the same type or gene as before. Calendering is a process, it does not fit the
criteria of "any other processes" as mentioned in section 2(f)(v), which includes "bleaching,
mercerising, dyeing, printing, water-proofing, rubberising, shrink-proofing, and organic
processing."

It is not essential for the calendering process in this instance to belong to the same genus as those
named in Section 2(f) so in order to remove from the exemption (v), cotton fabric. Even if
calendering does not take part in the other processing precisely mentioned in the preceding
expressions in Section 2(f), it would be adequate if it is a "process" of cotton fabric (v). Due to
2
(1978) 4 SCC 16.

4
this, the Appellate Tribunal3 likewise did not give much thought to the alternative perspective on
whether the appellant's calendering method genuinely shared the same element or characteristic
as the other processes that were specifically mentioned.4

The generic declarations were merely designed to prevent against unintentional exclusions in
objects of the kind indicated previously; they were not meant to incorporate to an entirely
different class5. This was an assumption, and its applicability will be limited. When attempting to
interpret the act, the ejusdem generis technique will not be utilised because there will be no such
group or class present.

The processes that impart a change in the fabric's enduring nature by adding any form of
chemical, to change the fabric's appearance, or to make any other modification of this kind are
included in the manufacturing terms used under Section 2(f)(v), as mentioned above.

In this instance, the terms organdie processing, bleaching, printing, shrink proofing, water
proofing, rubberizing which comes before “or any other process” phrase refer to procedures that
give the fabric a lasting character change through the use of chemicals or other methods. One or
both these incidents must be shared by “any other procedure” in the section. “Unprocessed” is
the word which is mentioned in the exempting notification has drawn down the meaning with
reference to the phrase mentioned, “any other process” which refers to what constitutes
manufacture if interpreted in the widest sense possible

3
Act no. 27, Madras Province, 1949
4

5
Act no. 26 of 1971

5
 F. CONCLUSION

It can thereby be concluded that the rule of ejusdem generis indicates an effort to resolve
incompatibility between the specific and general phrases. It states that a statute is to be construed
as a whole and that no words in a statute are deemed to be redundant.

Processes of the kind that the contested Act has included are not so exotic or alien to the concept
of "manufacture" that they cannot fall under that term. Therefore, "any other process" in Section
2(f)(v) that is a part of the framework of the extended meaning of "manufacture" must also share
the same characteristic. This is because processes like bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, printing,
water-proofing, rubberizing, shrink-proofing, and organdie processing are not unrelated to the
concept of manufacture and result in changes to the cotton fabric that make it a commercially
different product.

It was determined that it was appropriate to remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for a fresh
disposition of the appeal on the proper rule of construction to be applied in the understanding of
the expression "any other process" in Sec. 2(f)(v) and to consider whether the specific
calendering adopted by the appellant would satisfy this aspect, which requires investigation
because the Appellate-Tribunal had not specifically examined this aspect and recorded its finding
thereon. As a result, the appeal was successful, the challenged order is annulled, and the
Appellate Tribunal has been given another chance to decide appeal No. 151 of 1984 in line with
the law.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
Books:

6
 Dhanda, Amita, N S Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes, 12th ed., LexisNexis
Publishing, 2017

 Benson Maxwell Peter, On the Interpretation of Statutes, 18th ed., Sweet &
Maxwell, 1969

 Frederick Schauer, Chapter Title: THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTESThinking Like a

Lawyer A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning