Page 215 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] 3M INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-I 397

(ii) the items demonstrated by AR are as follows :

Skin Barrier - Micropore Tapes

21. We find that the department has established that a product named
and known as “Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes” exists. We find that evi-
dence of the same has been supplied as RUD to the appellants. Under such cir-
cumstances, we find that the appellants contention that no product known as
“Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes” exists and there should have been a
comma (,) in between doesn’t hold water. When such products are sold and used
as such, it cannot be inferred that the notification was wrongly worded and
therefore, it is to be interpreted to mean Skin Barriers, Micropore Surgical Tapes
is not acceptable.
22. We find that the impugned order has discussed the issue. Learned
Commissioner observes that :
29. I find that even if there were to be a comma missing in the de-
scription “Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes”, it is not open to me to
supply the same. In the case of The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh
v. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur [(1975) 4 SCC 22], the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court has held as under :
“Even if there is a casus omissus in a statute, the language of which
is otherwise plain and unambiguous, the Court is not competent to
supply the omission by engrafting on it or introducing in it...”
In this regard, the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in the case
of Sankar Tea Co. Ltd. and Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong and
Others [1985 (21) E.L.T. 679 (Guwahati)] also provides useful guidance. In
the said case, the Hon’ble Court was dealing with the issue of rate of Cen-
tral Excise duty chargeable on the tea produced in District of Dibrugarh in
the State of Assam. Briefly stated, the Central Government by a notification
dated 1-5-1970 divided the tea growing areas into Zones and fixed the rate
of duty on tea produced in the said areas. At the relevant time, Dibrugarh
was a sub-division in the District of Lakhimpur in Zone V. As per notifica-
tion dated 22-9-1971, the Assam Government made the sub-division of
Dibrugarh as a separate district with effect from 2-10-1971. Subsequently,
the Central Government by superseding the earlier notification of 1970,
made several zones in place of 5 Zones by a notification dated 5-11-1981 but
the District of Dibrugarh was not shown separately. This was done subse-
quently by a notification dated 28-1-1982. The issue before the Hon’ble
High Court was whether the duty should be charged on the Tea produced

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  215