Page 20 of 25

2.2 THE RULE OF LITERAL CONSTRUCTION

Farm v TN Electricity Board, (2004) 4 SCC 705 [LNIND 2004 SC 498], p 710 : AIR 2004 SC 2341 [LNIND 2004 SC
498](9th Edn, p 95 of this book is referred. “Agriculture” for purposes of TN Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of
Electrical Energy Act, 1978 will not include aquaculture/pisciculture).
26. London & North Eastern Rly Co v Berriman, (1946) 1 All ER 255, p 271 : 1946 AC 278 (HL).
27. Kirkness v John Hudson & Co Ltd, (1955) 2 All ER 345, p 348 (HL).
28. Treacy v Director of Public Prosecutions, (1971) 2 WLR 112, p 128 : (1971) 1 All ER 110 : 1971 AC 536 (HL). For
further illustration of the application of this method see Thomas v Frayer, (1970) 2 All ER 1, p 5 (CA) (letters “g” and
“h”).
29. Treacy v Director of Public Prosecutions, (1971) 2 WLR 112, p 128 : 1971 AC 537 (HL).
30. Collector of Central Excise Pune v Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd, JT 1999 (5) SC 595, p 607 : AIR 1999 SC 3234 [LNIND 1999
SC 672], pp 3241, 3242 : (1999) 7 SCC 448 [LNIND 1999 SC 672]. For MODVAT and CENVAT schemes, see further
Vikram Cement v Commissioner Central Excise, Indore, (2006) 2 SCC 351 [LNIND 2006 SC 38] : (2006) 1 JT 385.
31. See Chapter 1, title 3 “Statute must be Read as a whole in its context”.
32. See title 4 “Regard to Consequences”, infra.
33. Prithipal Singh v UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1413 [LNIND 1982 SC 123], p 1419 : (1982) 3 SCC 140 [LNIND 1982 SC 123]; AP
Board for Pollution Control v Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd, AIR 1989 SC 611 [LNIND 1988 SC 494], p 615 : (1989) 1
SCC 44 [LNIND 1988 SC 494].
34. Spillers Ltd v Caradix Assessment Committee & Pritchard, (1931) 2 KB 21 : (1931) All ER Rep 524, pp 528, 529.
Distinguished in Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1988), (1989) 2 All ER 1 (HL).
35. Mayor, Councillors and Burgesses v Taranaki Electric Power Board, AIR 1933 PC 216. See further Buckinghamshire
County Council v Trigg, (1963) 1 All ER 403, p 406 (words “adjoins”, “fronts” or “abuts” envisage actual contact). Cf
Mayor, etc. of the City of Wellington v Mayor, etc. of Lower Hutt, (1904) AC 773, p 775 (PC) (word “adjacent” includes
place close to or near and not only places adjoining). Also see, Hukma v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 476 [LNIND
1963 SC 207], p 479 : 1964 (4) SCR 708 [LNIND 1963 SC 207] (the words “areas adjoining the Land Customs Frontier”
do not mean only a few miles touching the frontier but may include an entire district or even an entire State adjoining
the frontier).
36. Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1988), (1989) 2 All ER 1 (HL).
37. See UOI v Garware Nylons Ltd, AIR 1996 SC 3509 [LNIND 1996 SC 1419], p 3512 : 1996 (10) SCC 413 [LNIND 1996
SC 1419] (passages from Sixth Edn, pp 72, 73 of this book are referred).
38. London & North Eastern Rly Co v Berriman, (1946) 1 All ER 255, p 257 : 1946 AC 278 (HL). See also AG v Emily
Moore, AIR 1938 PC 238, p 241.
39. Unwin v Hanson, (1891) 2 QB 115 (CA), p 119; referred to in London & North Eastern Rly Co v Berriman, supra, pp
266, 268; Indian Cable Co Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1995 SC 64 [LNIND 1994 SC 1602], pp 67, 68 : JT
1994 (6) SC 243 [LNIND 1994 SC 1602], p 250 : (1994) 6 SCC 610 [LNIND 1994 SC 1602]; UOI v Garware Nylons Ltd,
AIR 1996 SC 3509 [LNIND 1996 SC 1419], pp 3511, 3512 : (1996) 10 SCC 413 [LNIND 1996 SC 1419]; Chemical and
Fibres of India v UOI, AIR 1997 SC 558 [LNIND 1997 SC 16], p 561 : 1997 (2) SCC 664 [LNIND 1997 SC 16].
40. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd v UOI, (1985) 3 SCC 284 [LNIND 1985 SC 201], p 290 : AIR 1985 SC 1201 [LNIND 1985
SC 201]. See further Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd v State of Rajasthan, (1980) 4 SCC 71 [LNIND 1980 SC 240],
pp 75, 76 : AIR 1980 SC 1552 [LNIND 1980 SC 240]; Asian Paints India Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1988 SC
1087 [LNIND 1988 SC 188], p 1089 : 1988 (2) SCC 470 [LNIND 1988 SC 188]; Collector of Customs v Swastik Woollen
Pvt Ltd, AIR 1988 SC 2176 [LNIND 1988 SC 379], p 2179; State of UP v Renusagar Power Co, AIR 1988 SC 1737
[LNIND 1988 SC 619], p 1746 : 1988 (4) SCC 59 [LNIND 1988 SC 619]; Collector of Customs v SK Mohan & Co, AIR
1989 SC 2250 [LNIND 1989 SC 465], pp 2253, 2254 : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 337 ; Madanlal Manoharlal v State of
Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 556 [LNIND 1989 SC 678], p 558; Chemical and Fibres of India v UOI, AIR 1997 SC 558
[LNIND 1997 SC 16], pp 561, 564 (Polymides of textile grade are not plastic material nor synthetic resin in the textile
trade); UOI v Garware Nylons Ltd, AIR 1996 SC 3509 [LNIND 1996 SC 1419], p 3512 : 1996 (10) SCC 413 [LNIND
1996 SC 1419] (passages from Sixth Edn of this book, pp 72, 73 are referred); UOI v VM Salgaoncar and Bros Pvt Ltd,
AIR 1998 SC 1367 [LNIND 1998 SC 1218], p 1370 : 1998 (4) SCC 263 [LNIND 1998 SC 1218] (Trans-shippers are
“ocean-going vessels” as understood in maritime enterprises); Real Optical Co v Appellate Collector of Customs, JT
2001 (3) SC 125, p 127 (Rough optical glass Blanks are not “other glass, glassware”); Cemento Corp Ltd v Collector
Central Excise, (2002) 8 SCC 139 [LNIND 2002 SC 650], p 145 : AIR 2002 SC 3680 [LNIND 2002 SC 650], p 3684
(meaning of “cement” as known in the trade and not dictionary meaning used. “Lympo” used as a substitute for cement
was not held to be “cement”); Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, (2003) 2 SCC 494 [LNIND
2003 SC 28], p 500 : AIR 2003 SC 938 [LNIND 2003 SC 28](meaning assigned by those trading in and using the
product, meaning of “mosaictiles”); Alpine Industries v Collector of Central Excise, (2003) 3 SCC 111 [LNIND 2003 SC
27], p 115 : AIR 2003 SC 935 [LNIND 2003 SC 27](Commercial Parlance); Collector of Customs v Agfa Ltd, (1997) 71
ALJR 123, p 128 (High Court of Australia) (When construing revenue statutes that utilise trade or technical terms, the
law generally favours interpretation of the terms as they are understood in the trade to which the statute applies).
 Page 21 of 25
2.2 THE RULE OF LITERAL CONSTRUCTION

41. GS Auto International Ltd v Collector of Central Excise Chandigarh, AIR 2003 SC 986 [LNIND 2003 SC 43], p 989 :
(2003) 2 SCC 371 [LNIND 2003 SC 43], p 378 : (2003) 152 ELT 3 (nuts, bolts, etc. found to be parts of automobiles
classifiable as such). See further UOI v Garware Nylons Ltd, 1996 (6) Scale 667 [LNIND 1996 SC 1419], pp 671, 672 :
AIR 1996 SC 3509 [LNIND 1996 SC 1419], pp 3512, 3513 (on evidence produced “Nylon twine” was held to be
included in “Nylon yarn”); Purewal Associates Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, 1996 (7) Scale 378 [LNIND 1996 SC
2429], pp 381, 382 : 1996 (10) SCC 752 [LNIND 1996 SC 2429] (on affidavit evidence of people in the trade, the
articles which were components of watches known as Lid screw, Barrel axle screw, Bridge screw and Dial key screw
were held to fall under the general tariff item 68 and not under item 52 (of the Central Excise Tariff) relating to “Bolts,
nuts and screws”); National Mineral Development Corp Ltd v State of MP, (2004) 6 SCC 281 [LNIND 2004 SC 599], p
295 : AIR 2004 SC 2456 [LNIND 2004 SC 599], p 2464 (The principles stated above were referred with approval from
9th Edn, pp 97 to 99 of this book in finding out the meaning of “slimes” produced in iron ore processing); Kumar Motors,
Bareilly v Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP, (2007) 4 SCC 140 [LNIND 2007 SC 115] (para 15) : (2007) 3 JT 193 (A
commodity is identified by ordinary commercial parlance); Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar v State of UP, (2008) 8 SCC 305
[LNIND 2008 SC 1191] para 18 : AIR 2008 SC 2733 [LNIND 2008 SC 1191](Zafrani Zarda being a manufactured
tobacco would not answer the description of processed tobacco. The common parlance test applied); Godrej Industries
Ltd v DG Ahire Assistant Collector of Central Excise, (2008) 8 SCC 600 [LNIND 2008 SC 1366] para 49 : (2008) 7 JT
628 (Liquid hair dye is not “hair lotion” having regard to its chemical composition and also common parlance test).
42. Atul Glass Industries Pvt Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, (1986) 3 SCC 480 [LNIND 1986 SC 201] : AIR 1986 SC
1730 [LNIND 1986 SC 201](“Glass mirrors” is a different article from “glass and glass ware”); Trutuf Safety Glass
Industries v CST, (2007) 7 SCC 242 [LNIND 2007 SC 933] : (2007) 9 JT 622 (In this case, the entry was “Glass and
glassware in all forms”. Automobile Safety toughened glass was held to fall in this entry. Atul case distinguished);
Sterling Foods v State of Karnataka, (1986) 3 SCC 469 [LNIND 1986 SC 224] : AIR 1986 SC 1809 [LNIND 1986 SC
224](Shrimps, prawns and lobsters do not become different article after the process of cutting their heads and tails,
peeling, deveining, cleaning, freezing and packing); Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v Shiphy International
Alleppey, AIR 1988 SC 992 [LNIND 1988 SC 152]: 1998 Supp SCC 458 (Fresh frog legs do not become a different
commodity after they are washed and frozen); Aditya Mills Ltd v UOI, AIR 1988 SC 2237 [LNIND 1988 SC 421], p 2239
: 1988 (4) SCC 274 [LNIND 1988 SC 440] (when two plies of Polyester yarn and one ply of Rayon Filament yarn are
doubled together, the resultant yarn known as PPRF yarn is a separate and distinct item for taxation); Ujagar Prints v
UOI, AIR 1989 SC 516 [LNIND 1988 SC 548], p 526 : 1989 (3) SCC 488 [LNIND 1988 SC 548] (Gray fabric after
bleaching, Dyeing, Printing, Sizing shrink proofing, etc. becomes a different commodity); Collector of Central Excise v
Eastend Paper Industries, AIR 1990 SC 1893 [LNIND 1989 SC 422], pp 1895, 1896 : (1989) 4 SCC 244 [LNIND 1989
SC 422] (manufacture includes all incidental or ancillary processes for making the goods marketable); Narne Tulaman
Manufacturers Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad v Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, AIR 1989 SC 79 [LNIND 1988 SC 453]:
1989 (1) SCC 172 [LNIND 1988 SC 453] (Assembling of components may amount to manufacture if the product
obtained from the work of assembling is a new product known in the market); Delhi Cold Storage Pvt Ltd v CIT, AIR
1991 SC 2125 [LNIND 1991 SC 382]: 1991 (4) SCC 239 [LNIND 1991 SC 382] (meaning of processing); BP Oil Mills
Ltd v Sales Tax Tribunal, JT 1998 (6) SC 210 [LNIND 1998 SC 1428], p 212 : AIR 1998 SC 3055 [LNIND 1998 SC
1428]: (1998) 6 SCC 577 [LNIND 1998 SC 1428] (meaning of “processing”); Collector of Central Excise v Rajasthan
State Chemical Works, AIR 1991 SC 2222 [LNIND 1991 SC 467]: 1991 (4) SCC 473 [LNIND 1991 SC 467] (Difference
between “manufacture” and “Processing”); Saraswati Sugar Mills v Haryana State Board, AIR 1992 SC 224 [LNIND
1991 SC 546], p 229 : 1992 (1) SCC 418 [LNIND 1991 SC 546] (Difference between “processing” and “manufacture”);
CIT, Kerala v Tara Agencies, (2007) 6 SCC 429 [LNIND 2007 SC 834] (Difference between “manufacture” and
“produced”) paras 12, 19, 20, 37 : (2007) 9 JT 65; Commissioner of Central Excise v Indian Aluminium Co Ltd, (2006) 8
SCC 314 [LNIND 2006 SC 787] (paras 17, 19, 20) : (2006) 9 JT 266 : (2006) 10 Scale 34 [LNIND 2006 SC 787]
(meaning of manufacture. “Dross” obtained in the manufacture of Aluminium sheets from Aluminium Oxide is not a
manufactured commodity liable to excise duty); Commissioner of Central Excise v Tarpaulin International, (2010) 9
SCC 103 [LNIND 2010 SC 705] paras 15, 17, 19, 20 and 25 : (2010) 8 JT 38 (Process of sticking and fixing eyelets in
Tarpaulin does not amount to manufacture as the process does not bring about a new product); CIT, Haryana v Krishna
Copper Steel Rolling Mills, AIR 1992 SC 422 [LNIND 1991 SC 726], p 430 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 732 (The raw material
may assume “semi-finished” or “finished” forms at different stages of processing before manufacture results. The case
deals with articles manufactured from iron and steel); Commissioner of Sales Tax v Bharat Petroleum Corp, AIR 1992
SC 959 [LNIND 1992 SC 171]: 1992 (2) SCC 579 [LNIND 1992 SC 171] (Production of by-product may also amount to
manufacture); TVL KAK Anwar & Co v State of TN, JT 1997 (9) SC 384: AIR 1998 SC 518 [LNIND 1997 SC
1512](Tanning of raw hidesand skins results in manufacture); Edward Keventer Pvt Ltd v Bihar State Agricultural
Marketing Board, AIR 2000 SC 1796 [LNIND 2000 SC 654]: (2000) 6 SCC 264 [LNIND 2000 SC 654] (Beverages
“Frooti” and “Appy” are different commercial commodities from “Mango” and “Apple” from which they are
manufactured); Aspinwall & Co v CIT, Ernakulam, AIR 2001 SC 3708 [LNIND 2001 SC 3093]: (2001) 7 SCC 525
[LNIND 2001 SC 3093] (conversion of raw berries into coffee beans is manufacture); BPL India Ltd v Commissioner of
Central Excise, AIR 2002 SC 2104 [LNIND 2002 SC 386], pp 2106, 2107 : (2002) 5 SCC 167 [LNIND 2002 SC 386]
(Assembling of VTR and colour monitors from components by use of fasteners is manufacture); State of Andhra
Pradesh v Modern Protein Ltd, JT (1994) 3 SC 431 : 1994 Supp (2) SCC 496 (Deoiled ground nut cake after being
granuled by grinding is turned into “ground nut protein flour” which is a different commercial commodity and a separate
taxable entity); The Gramophone Co of India v The Collector of Customs, JT 1999 (9) SC 275 [LNIND 1999 SC 1054],
p 280 : 1997 (11) SCC 557 (mass production of prerecorded cassettes from blank cassettes is manufacture); Kores
India Ltd Chennai v Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai, (2005) 1 SCC 385 [LNIND 2004 SC 1170] (meaning of
“manufacture”. Cutting of duty paid typewriter/telex ribbons in jumbo rolls into standard predetermined lengths results in
 Page 22 of 25
2.2 THE RULE OF LITERAL CONSTRUCTION

manufacture); OK Play (India) Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, (2005) 2 SCC 555 [LNIND 2005 SC 115] : AIR
2005 SC 1031 [LNIND 2005 SC 115](meaning of “manufacture” conversion of low density polyethylene and high
density polyethylene granules into moulding powder for using the same as inputs to manufacture plastic water storage
tanks and toys, amounts to “manufacture”); Prabhat Sound Studios v Additional Collector of Central Excise, JT 1997
(10) SC 392 : (1997) 10 SCC 543 (Recording of sound on blank tapes does not result in manufacture); UOI v JG Glass
Industries Ltd, AIR 1998 SC 839 [LNIND 1997 SC 1580], pp 844, 845 : 1998 (2) SCC 32 [LNIND 1997 SC 1580]
(Printing on glass bottles does not amount to manufacture); CIT, Orissa v NC Budhraja and Co, AIR 1993 SC 2529
[LNIND 1993 SC 663]: 1994 Supp (1) SCC 280 (Construction of a dam or a bridge or a building as a whole does not
amount to manufacture or production of an article); CIT v Venkateshwara Hatcheries P Ltd, AIR 1999 SC 1225 [LNIND
1999 SC 299], p 1231 : (1999) 3 SCC 632 [LNIND 1999 SC 299] (Hatching of chicks in a hatchery does not amount to
production of articles or things); Hyderabad Industries Ltd v UOI, (1995) 5 SCC 338 [LNIND 1999 SC 533] : JT (1999) 5
SC 594 (separation of asbestos fibre from the rock in which it is embedded by manual and mechanical means does not
result in manufacture); Rajasthan State Electricity Board v Associated Stone Industries, JT 2000 (6) SC 522 [LNIND
2000 SC 2095], p 529 : (2000) 6 SCC 141 [LNIND 2000 SC 2095] : AIR 2000 SC 2382 [LNIND 2000 SC
2095](Excavation of stones does not result in manufacture); Rajasthan State Electricity Board v Associated State
Industries, AIR 2000 SC 2382 [LNIND 2000 SC 2095]: (2000) 6 SCC 141 [LNIND 2000 SC 2095] (Energy consumed
for pumping out water from mines cannot be said to be energy consumed in manufacture, processing or repair of
goods); Indian Hotels Co Ltd v The Income-tax Officer, AIR 2000 SC 2645 [LNIND 2000 SC 1073], p 2650 : (2000) 7
SCC 39 [LNIND 2000 SC 1073] (In the context of hotel business preparation of foodstuffs by cooking or by other
process does not result in manufacture); CST v Lal Kunwa Crusher Pvt Ltd, (2000) 3 SCC 525 [LNIND 2000 SC 479] :
AIR 2000 SC 1161 [LNIND 2000 SC 479](Crushing of stone boulders into stone chips, gittis and stonebalast does not
result in manufacture); India Cable Co Ltd v Collector Central Excise, JT 1994 (6) SC 243 [LNIND 1994 SC 1602], pp
250, 251 : AIR 1995 SC 64 [LNIND 1994 SC 1602](Meaning of manufacture, marketability essential for levy of excise
duty); Tega India Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise Calcutta, (2004) 2 SCC 727 [LNIND 2004 SC 174] : AIR 2004
SC 2785 [LNIND 2004 SC 174](Meaning of “manufacture”-Rubberising and painting of pipes does not alter them into a
new commodity so as to amount to manufacture); Shyam Oil Cake Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, (2005) 1 SCC 264
[LNIND 2004 SC 1174] : AIR 2005 SC 1192 [LNIND 2004 SC 1174](Process of refining vegetable oil does not result in
manufacture); Metalex (I) Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, (2005) 1 SCC 271 : AIR 2004 SC 4889
(Laminating / lacquering / metalling of film does not result in manufacture); Aman Marble Industries Pvt Ltd v Collector
of Central Excise, (2005) 1 SCC 279 [LNIND 2007 SC 834] (cutting of marble blocks into slabs does not result in
manufacture); Hindustan Poles Corp v Commissioner of Central Excise, (2006) 4 SCC 85 [LNIND 2006 SC 217] (para
40) : (2006) 4 JT 185. (The activity of merely joining of three pipes of different dimensions to obtain a desired length
cannot result in manufacture). Crane Betel Nut Powder Wroks v Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, (2007) 4
SCC 155 [LNIND 2007 SC 340] : (2007) 4 JT 485 (Crushing of betel nuts and processing them with spices, sweetening
agent and oil to obtain supari powder did not amount to manufacture). For imposition of excise duty there should be
manufacture and the article manufactured should be marketable. It is then only that the article comes in the category of
“goods” for imposition of excise duty and this will be the position also in cases of captive consumption of the article:
Moti Laminates Pvt Ltd v Collector, Central Excise, 1995 (1) Scale 713 : 1995 (3) SCC 23 [LNIND 1995 SC 241]; UOI v
Delhi Cloth and General Mills, AIR 1997 SC 2429 [LNIND 1997 SC 437]: (1997) 5 SCC 767 [LNIND 1997 SC 437];
Mittal Engineering Works Pvt Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, 1996 (8) Scale 452 : 1997 (1) SCC 203 : (1997) 106
STC 201; UOI v Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co Ltd, JT 1997 (5) SC 474 [LNIND 1997 SC 437]: 1997 (92) ELT 315
[LNIND 1997 SC 437] (SC); Collector of Central Excise Baroda v United Phosphorous Ltd, JT 2000 (4) SC 323 [LNIND
2000 SC 622]: (2000) 4 SCC 18 [LNIND 2000 SC 622]; Cadila Laboratories Pvt Ltd v CCE, AIR 2003 SC 1700 [LNIND
2003 SC 186], p 1703 : (2003) 4 SCC 12 [LNIND 2003 SC 186]. (It is for the Department to show that the intermediate
product is marketable before it could be separately taxed to excise duty). Commissioner of Central Excise v Mahavir
Aluminium Ltd, (2007) 5 SCC 260 [LNIND 2007 SC 640] : (2007) 7 JT 72 (When the intermediate product is a new
commercial commodity and is marketable, it will be subjected to Excise duty). UOI v Ahmedabad Electricity Co Ltd, AIR
2004 SC 11 [LNIND 2003 SC 918], p 20 : (2003) 11 SCC 129 [LNIND 2003 SC 918] (mention of an item in the
schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986 does not by itself make it exigible to Excise tax unless the article is
manufactured produced as provided in section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Use of coal in furnaces of boilers as
fuel for producing steam used in factory in manufacturing of articles and resulting in some unburnt coal called “cinder”
cannot be said to be manufactured or produced and made liable to Excise duty); But the definition of “manufacture” in
section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is not confined to its natural meaning and is an expansive
definition: Collector of Central Excise v SD Fine Chemicals, 1995 (2) Scale 550 : 1995 Supp (2) SCC 336. Similarly the
definition of “manufacture” in MP General Sales Tax Act includes processing which does not result in production of new
article: Ashirwad Ispat Udyog v State Level Committee, JT 1998 (7) SC 558 [LNIND 1998 SC 1150], p 591 : AIR 1999
SC 111 [LNIND 1998 SC 988]: (1998) 8 SCC 85 [LNIND 1998 SC 988]. Similar is the position in the definition of
manufacture in UP Trade Tax Act, 1948, which too is an expansive definition : Sonebhadra Fuels v Commissioner of
Trade Tax UP, (2006) 7 SCC 322 [LNIND 2006 SC 570] : (2006) 7 JT 73; Kumar Motors Bareilly v Commissioner of
Sales Tax UP, (2007) 4 SCC 140 [LNIND 2007 SC 115] para 17 : (2007) 3 JT 193. If the processes result in erection of
immovable property, it will not amount to manufacture of goods liable to excise duty : Triveni Engineering and Industries
Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, AIR 2000 SC 2896 [LNIND 2000 SC 1069], p 2901 : (2000) 7 SCC 29 [LNIND
2000 SC 1069]; TTG Industries Ltd Madras v Collector of Central Excise Raipur, (2004) 4 SCC 751 [LNIND 2004 SC
642] : AIR 2004 SC 3422 [LNIND 2004 SC 642]. [See further on this point, pp 1146-1147].
43. HMM Ltd v Administrative Bangalore City Corp, AIR 1990 SC 47 [LNIND 1989 SC 488]: (1989) 4 SCC 640 [LNIND
1989 SC 488] (“Horlicks” milk powder brought in large bulk containers large steel drums and packed in unit containers
 Page 23 of 25
2.2 THE RULE OF LITERAL CONSTRUCTION

glass bottles within octroi limits and then exported was not held to be “consumed” or “used”.); Mafatlal Industries Ltd v
Nadiad Nagar Palika, AIR 2000 SC 1223 [LNIND 2000 SC 405], p 1225 : (2000) 3 SCC 1 [LNIND 2000 SC 405] (cloth
pieces of 100 metres length brought within octroi limits and cut into smaller pieces and then exported, not held to be
consumed or used.)
44. Atul Glass Industries Pvt Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, supra, p 485. See further Plasmac Machine Manufacturing
Co Pvt Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1991 SC 999 [LNIND 1990 SC 741], pp 1002, 1003 : 1990 (4) JT 549
[LNIND 1990 SC 741]; UOI v Parle Products Pvt Ltd, AIR 1994 SC 106, p 108 : 1994 Supp (3) SCC 662 (Evidence may
have to be produced for showing that the article resulting after processing is commercially different from the article
subjected to processing and “manufacture” has taken place); Collector of Central Excise v Steel Strips Ltd, 1995 (3)
Scale 106 : AIR 1995 SC 1483 [LNIND 1995 SC 611](Technical evidence to the effect that certain processing led to
manufacture and production of a new marketable commodity including authoritative publications should be introduced
by the Department before the adjudicating authority).
45. Vijay Ship-breaking Corp v CIT, (2010) 10 SCC 39 [LNIND 2008 SC 1970].
46. Dunlop India Ltd & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd v UOI, AIR 1977 SC 597 [LNIND 1975 SC 390], p 605 : (1976) 2 SCC
241 [LNIND 1975 SC 390]. (VP latex which is synthetic rubber falls within item 39 “Rubber Raw” of the first schedule to
the Indian Tariff Act, 1934); UOI v Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills, AIR 1977 SC 1548 [LNIND 1977 SC 170]: 1977 SCC
(Tax) 399. (“Woollen fabrics” in Sch 1, entry 21, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 does not include non-woven felts
manufactured from woollen fibres by machine pressing and used for filteration in heavy industries). See further text
and Notes 54 to 58, p 123.
47. Unwin v Hanson, (1891) 2 QB 115 : 60 LJ QB 531 (CA).
48. Ibid, p 119.
49. Aswinikumar Ghose v Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369 [LNIND 1952 SC 60], p 373 : 1953 SCR 1 [LNIND 1952 SC
94]; See further Re Lily Isabel Thomas, AIR 1964 SC 855 [LNIND 1964 SC 596], p 857 : 1964 (6) SCR 229.
50. London & North Eastern Rly Co v Berriman, (1946) 1 All ER 255, p 257 : 1946 AC 278 (HL).
51. Ibid
52. Ibid, pp 257, 260, 262, 266, 269; UOI v Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd, AIR 1963 SC 791 [LNIND 1962 SC 333]:
1963 Supp (1) SCR 586; South Bihar Sugar Mills v UOI, AIR 1968 SC 922 [LNIND 1968 SC 30]: 1968 (3) SCR 21
[LNIND 1968 SC 30]. See further Attorney-General v Emily Moore, AIR 1938 PC 238, p 241 and cases in Note 44, p
121.
53. Carew and Co Ltd v UOI, AIR 1975 SC 2260 [LNIND 1975 SC 290], pp 2271, 2272 : (1975) 2 SCC 791 [LNIND 1975
SC 290].
54. State of Orissa v Dinabandhu Sahu and Sons, AIR 1976 SC 1561 [LNIND 1976 SC 144]: 1977 SCC (Tax) 57 : (1976)
4 SCC 431 [LNIND 1976 SC 144]. See further text and Notes 46 to 52, pp 382-384.
55. UOI v Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd, AIR 1963 SC 791 [LNIND 1962 SC 333]: 1963 Supp (1) SCR 586.
56. South Bihar Sugar Mills v UOI, AIR 1968 SC 922 [LNIND 1968 SC 30]: 1968 (3) SCR 21 [LNIND 1968 SC 30].
57. UOI v Ramlal Mansukhrai, AIR 1971 SC 2333 [LNIND 1970 SC 330], p 2335 : 1970 (2) SCC 472 [LNIND 1970 SC
330].
58. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd v UOI, (1985) 3 SCC 284 [LNIND 1985 SC 201], p 291 : AIR 1985 SC 1201 [LNIND 1985
SC 201].
59. Ibid
60. Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd, Hyderabad v CCE, AIR 1997 SC 3414, p 3419 : 1997 (5) JT 742 : (1997) 6 SCC 464.
61. Ibid, p 3420 (AIR).
62. Labour Inspector, Central v Chittapur Stone Quarrying Co Pvt Ltd, AIR 1972 SC 1177 [LNIND 1972 SC 212]: (1972) 3
SCC 605 [LNIND 1972 SC 212].
63. MP Mineral Industry Association, Nagpur v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur, AIR 1960 SC 1068
[LNIND 1960 SC 114]: 1960 (3) SCR 476 [LNIND 1960 SC 114]. See further Mineral and Metals Trading Corp v UOI,
AIR 1972 SC 2551 [LNIND 1972 SC 389]: 1972 (2) SCC 620 [LNIND 1972 SC 389] and Indian Hard Metals Pvt Ltd v
UOI, AIR 1979 SC 397 [LNIND 1978 SC 359]: (1979) 4 SCC 155 [LNIND 1978 SC 359], for meaning of “Wolfram Ore”
in commercial sense.
64. Labour Inspector, Central v Chittapur Stone Quarrying Co Pvt Ltd, supra.
65. Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd v Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Cochin, AIR 1970 SC 1950 [LNIND
1969 SC 403]: 1969 (3) SCC 112 [LNIND 1969 SC 403].