http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/09/1989

BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR  196            1989 SCR  Supl. (1) 341  1989 SCC  (4) 155        JT 1989 (4)   396  1989 SCALE  (2)750

ACT:     Central  Excises & Salt Act, 1944/Central Excise  Rules, 1944:   Sections   2(f),   3   and   Item   68   in    First Schedule---Notification  No.105/82-CE  dated  28.2.1982/Rule 8---Manufacture  of paper/paper-boards--Use of  Sodium  Sul- phate in the process--Whether used as raw material--Entitle- ment to proforma credits of duty paid. Words & Phrases: "Raw Material’ ’--Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:     Respondent has been using Sodium Sulphate in the process of  manufacture of paper and paper-boards, and by virtue  of Notification  No.  105/82-CE  dated  28.2.1982 claimed  pro- forma-credits.   The  Superintendent of Central  Excise  de- clined  the  claim on the ground that  Sodium  Sulphate  was burnt up in the process of manufacture and was not  retained in the paper, and therefore, could not be considered .as raw material in the manufacture of paper. He also issued a  show cause  notice for the recovery of  proforma-credits  already availed  of  by  the respondent.. On  appeal,  however,  the Assistant Collector set aside the show cause notice  holding that  Sodium Sulphate was an essential raw material  in  the manufacture  of paper and as such attracted the  benefit  of the  notification.  But,  the Collector  of  Central  Excise (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and remitted  it  back  to him  for  readjudication.  Respondent challenged  this order before the Customs, Excise  and  Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Adopting the reasoning in  its earlier  decision  in Seshasayee Paper and  Boards  Ltd.  v. Collector of Central Excise, [1985] 22 ELT 163, the Tribunal allowed  the appeal and restored the order of the  Assistant Collector.     This appeal under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is against the Tribunal’s order.     On  behalf of the Appellant, it was contended  that  the word  "raw  material" connotes something more than  what  is ’used’ in the manufacture and requires that goods to  become "raw  material"  must either in their  original  or  altered form, endure as a composite element of the end product. 324

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

   The  Respondent  contended that Sodium Sulphate  was  an essential  chemical  ingredient in the  chemistry  of  paper technology  and  the fact that the ingredient  was  actually burnt  up or sublimated in the process; and did  not  retain its  identity in the end product, will not detract from  its being a raw material. Dismissing the appeal,     HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal was right in its conclusion that Sodium Sulphate was used in the manufacture of paper as "Raw Material"  within  the  meaning  of  the  Notification   No. 105/82/CE dated 28.2.1982. [333A]     1.2.  The  expression "Raw-Material" is  not  a  defined term.  The  meaning to be given to it is  the  ordinary  and well-accepted  connotation in the common parlance  of  those who deal with the matter. The ingredients used in the chemi- cal technology of manufacture of any end product might  com- prise,  amongst  others,  of those which  may  retain  their dominant  individual identity and character  throughout  the process  and  also  in the end-product; those  which,  as  a result  of interaction with other chemicals or  ingredients, might themselves undergo chemical or qualitative changes and in  such  altered form find themselves in  the  end-product; those  which, like catalytic agents, while  influencing  and accelerating the chemical reaction, however, may  themselves remain uninfluenced and unaltered and remain independent  of and outside the end-products and those, as here, which might be burnt-up or consumed in the chemical reactions. It  could be that the ingredient should be so essential for the chemi- cal  processes culminating in the emergence of  the  desired end-product,  that  having regard to its importance  in  the indispensability for the process, it could be said that  its very  consumption on burning-up is its quality and value  as raw-material.  In such a case, the relevant test is not  its absence  in the end-product, but the dependence of the  end- product  for its essential presence at the delivery  end  of the  process.  The ingredient goes into the  making  of  the end-product  in  the  sense that without  its  absence,  the presence  of the end-product, as such, is rendered  impossi- ble. This quality should coalesce with the requirement  that its utilisation is in the manufacturing process as  distinct from the manufacturing apparatus. [331F-H; 332A-C]      Deputy  Commissioner of Sales Tax, Board of Revenue  v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd., JT 1988 1 SC 631, distinguished. Seshasayee  Paper  and Boards Ltd. v. Collector  of  Central Excise, 325 [1985]  22 ELT 163; Collector of Central Excise  v.  Eastend Paper  Industries Ltd., [1989] 43 ELT 201 SC;  Collector  of Central  Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.,  Chan- drapur,  [1983]  ELT 1263 and Collector of  Central  Excise, Bhubaneshwar  v.  Titaghur Paper Mills, [1985] 21  ELT  901, referred to.     2. It cannot be gain said that Sodium Sulphate used  was anterior  to and at one stage removed from the actual  manu- facture of paper. Section 2(1’) of the Act defines ’manufac- ture’  and it takes within it all ancillary  and  incidental purposes.  Where  any particular process, is  so  integrally connected  with the ultimate production of goods  that,  but for  that process, manufacture or processing of goods  would be  commercially  inexpedient,  articles  required  in  that process,  would fail within the expression ’in the  manufac- ture of goods’. [332F-G, 331D]     Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend Paper  Industries Ltd., [1989] 43 ELT 201 SC, followed.     3.  It. is not always possible to draw a line of  strict

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

demarcation  between what can be said to be  ’goods’  merely used  in the manufacture and what constitute goods  used  as "Raw-Material" for that purpose. In the infinite variety  of ways  in which these problems present themselves it is  nei- ther  necessary  nor  wise to enunciate  principles  of  any general  validity  intended to cover all cases.  The  matter must  rest upon the facts of each case Though in many  cases it  might be difficult to draw a line of demarcation, it  is easy to discern on which side of the boarder-line a particu- lar case falls. [333B-C]     Pragmatism  and Theory in English Law, page  75,  Hamlyn Lectures  of 1987; Attorney General v. Brighton &  Hove  Co- operative Association, [1900] 1 Ch. 276; Mayor of South Port v. Morris, [1893] 1 Q.B. 359, relied on.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2882  of 1989.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  2.12.1988  of  the Customs,  Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,  New Delhi in Appeal No. E/1351 of 1988-C.     C.  Shirappa Adv. General for State of  Karnataka,  A.K. Ganguli,  K. Swami and Mrs. Sushma Sun, Advs. with them  for the Appellant. 326     Soli  J. Sorabji, O.P. Malhotra, Ms. Indu Malhotra,  Ms. Auesha Zaidi and Mrs. Nisha Bagchi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     VENKATACHALIAH, J. This appeal, under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, arises out of and  is directed against the Order No. E/1351/88-C dated  2.12.1988, by  the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate  Tribu- nal, (Tribunal) New Delhi, allowing the appeal preferred  by the  Respondent and holding that Respondent was entitled  to certain  proforma credits of the duty paid on  "Sodium  Sul- phate" used in the manufacture of paper and paper-boards  in which respondent is engaged.     The  short  point for consideration in  this  appeal  is whether  the Respondent-Manufacturer,--The Ballarpur  Indus- tries Ltd.,--was entitled to the benefit of Central  Govern- ment’s  Notification No. 105/ 82-CE dated 28.2.1982 a  ques- tion which in turn, depends on whether Sodium Sulphate could be said to have been used as "Raw-Material" in the  manufac- ture of ’paper’ and ’paper-board’. In the proceedings before the  authorities, the dispute initially concerned six  other inputs.  But  the controversy before us was limited,  as  it should rightly be, only to Sodium Sulphate inasmuch as  even in  the appeal before the Collector (Appeals),  the  depart- ment’s grievance, apparently, was confined to the  Proforma- Credits of duty earlier paid on Sodium Sulphate [See Col.  6 of   the  Assistant  Collector’s  Memorandum  Appeal   dated 15.7.1987 before the Collector (Appeals)].     2.  Respondent  is a manufacturer of  paper  and  paper- boards in the processes relating to which "Sodium  Sulphate" is  used "in the chemical recovery cycle of Sodium  Sulphate which  forms  an essential constituent of  Sulphate  cooking liquor  used in the digestion operation."  The  notification dated 28.2.1982 under which the credit is claimed reads:               "In  exercise of the power conferred  by  sub-               rule  (1)  of  rule 8 of  the  Central  Excise               Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the  Noti-               fication  of  the Government of India  in  the               Ministry  of Finance (Department  of  Revenue)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

             No.  178/77-Central  Excise,  Dated  18  June,               1977,  the Central Government  hereby  exempts               all  excisable goods (hereinafter referred  as               "the said goods") on which the duty of  excise               is  leviable and in the manufacture  of  which               any goods failing under               327               Item  No.  68  of the First  Schedule  to  the               Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)               (hereinafter  referred as "the  inputs")  have               been  used as raw material or component  parts               (hereinafter referred to as "the inputs") from               so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon               as is equivalent to the duty of excise already               paid on the "’inputs".               (Emphasis Supplied)     The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-2, Yamunana- gar,  declined  the  Proforma-Credit to  the  duty  paid  on "Sodium  Sulphate" on the ground that Sodium  Sulphate  "was burnt-up in the process of manufacture and was not  retained in  the paper" and that, therefore, it could not be  consid- ered "Raw-Material" in the manufacture of paper.  According- ly, he caused a notice dated 18.1.1983 to be issued  requit- ing  respondent to show cause why the amounts  of  Proforma- Credit  availed of by the respondent for the period  between 28.2.1982 and 31.10.1982 should not be recovered. The reason why "Sodium Sulphate" could not be held to be a "raw materi- al"  in the manufacture of paper was set out in  the  notice thus:                      "   .....  The Proforma Credit  claimed               and granted in respect of the above  mentioned               items from 28.2.82 to 31.10.82 is not admissi-               ble  because these Chemicals are burn out  and               do  not  remain in the finished  product.  The               amount  of proforma credit availed is,  there-               fore, liable to be recovered  ..... "               (Emphasis supplied)     However,  the  Assistant Collector  of  Central  Excise, Ambala,  by his order dated 27.6.1986 took a different  view and  held  that Sodium Sulphate, even as  the  other  inputs referred to in the said notice, was an essential raw materi- al in the manufacture of paper and attracted the benefit  of the notification. The show cause notice dated 18.1.1983 was, accordingly, set aside.     But, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set-aside the order of the Assistant Collector and remitted the matter to   Assistant   Collector   for   a   readjudication.   The respondent-manufacturer  challenged  this order  before  the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Respond- ent-Manufacturer,  set-aside  the  order  of  the  Collector (Appeals) and restored the order of the Assistant Collector. The  Tribunal adopted the reasoning in its earlier  decision in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. Collector of  Central Excise, [1985] 22 328 ELT 163 in which the Tribunal had held:               "   .....  the term "raw material" has  to  be               interpreted in the circumstances of each  case               in  the  absence of any acceptable  or  useful               definition of the term either in the  diction-               ary or in the technical literature  .....  "               "   .....   sodium sulphide lye,  Sodium  Sul-               phate, Daicol (Gaur Gums) and Fluo solid  lime               used  for  the  bleaching of  pulp  should  be               considered as raw materials in the manufacture

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

             of paper; they serve a distinct and definitive               purpose  in the normal and recognised  process               of manufacture of paper and are essential  for               the process of manufacture  ..... "     In this appeal, the Collector challenges the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal.     3. We have heard Sri A.K. Ganguly, learned Senior  Coun- sel for the Appellant and Sri Soli Sorabjee, learned  Senior Counsel  for the Respondent-Manufacturer. The thrust of  Sri Ganguly’s arguments is that the amplitude of the  expression "Raw-material"  in  the Notification has to  be  ascertained with  reference  to  and in the context of  the  purpose  in substituting that expression in place of the words obtaining in  the  earlier Notification No. 79/CE dated  4.6.1979,  in which  credit was given to duty paid on "goods"  which  have been  "used"  in  the manufacture of  excisable  goods.  Sri Ganguly says that the Tribunal has, virtually and in effect, ignored  the  essential and  important  distinction  between goods  being "used" in the manufacture on the one  hand  and "goods"  used as "Raw-Material" on the other,  ignoring  the conscious change intended by the substitution of the expres- sion   "Raw  Material"  in  the  later  notification   dated 28.2.1982  which was clearly intended to cut-down the  bene- fit.  Sri Ganguly referred to the following observations  of this  Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend  Paper Industries Ltd., [1989] 43 ELT 201 SC:               In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills  Co.               Ltd.  v. Sales Tax Officer, [1965] 16 STC  563               SC, this Court while construing the expression               ’in the manufacture or processing of goods for               sale’ in the context of Sales Tax Law,  though               the concept is different under the Excise Law,               has  held  that manufacture  of  goods  should               normally encompass the entire               329                process carried on by the dealer of  convert-               ing raw materials into finished goods .....  "                                                   (P. 204)                                          (Emphasis Supplied) and  contended that the import of the  word  "Raw-Material", judicially  accepted, connotes something more than  what  is ’used’ in the manufacture and requires that goods to  become "Raw-Material"  must,  either in their original  or  altered form, endure as a composite element of the end-product. Sri. Ganguly submitted that the technical literature and evidence in the case as to the part played by Sodium Sulphate in  the chemical  technology of paper making suggested  two  things: First, that Sodium Sulphate was utilised in the  preparation of an anterior, intermediate product at the stage of ’diges- tion’ of the pulp and did not, therefore, strictly belong to the  process of manufacture of paper itself; and,  Secondly, that  Sodium  Sulphate did not go directly into and  find  a place in the finished product and did not, therefore, quali- fy  for  being "Raw-Material" in the manufacture  of  paper. Learned  Counsel  said that no satisfactory  answer  to  the question  raised  in the appeal could be afforded  unless  a clear  line of demarcation between the material merely  used in  the  manufacture of paper on the one hand  and  material used  as "Raw-Material" on the other is drawn.  Sri  Ganguly sought to substantiate this distinction in the present  case with  reference  to certain observations of  this  Court  in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Board of Revenue v. Thomas Stephen  & Co., Ltd., JT 1988 (1) SC 631. One of  the  ques- tions  there was whether cashew-shells used in the  kiln  by the dealer who was a manufacturer of tiles, terra-cotta-ware

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

and  ceramic-items were exigible to purchase-tax under  Sec- tion 5A (1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, on the  ground that the dealer had "consumed such goods in  the "The   Tribunal   had  held  that   manufacture   of   other goods   ....." cashew-shells had been used only as  fuel  in the  kiln for the manufacture of tiles and that,  therefore, the  condition  of 5A (1)(a) of the Act was  not  satisfied, there  having  been no consumption of cashew-shells  in  the manufacture of the ceramic goods.               This Court held:                         "The  cashew shells in  the  instant               case,  had been used as fuel in the kiln.  The               cashew shells did not get transformed into the               end product. These have not been used as  raw-               materials  in  the manufacture of  the  goods.               These  have  been used only as an aid  in  the               manufacture of the goods by               330                the  assessee.  Consumption must  be  in  the               manufacture as raw-material or of other compo-               nents  which  go into the making  of  the  end               product  to  come within the mischief  of  the               section.  Cashew  shells do not  tend  to  the               making  of  the end product.  Goods  used  for               ancillary purposes like fuel in the process of               the  manufacture, do not fail  within  section               5A(1)(a) of the Act. Cashew shells, therefore,               do  not  attract levy of tax  under  the  said               section  .....  "                                                       (p.               634)                                        (Emphasis Supplied)     Sri  Ganguly says that "Sodium Sulphate" in the  present case must, like the cashew-shells, be held to have been used as  an  aid in the manufacture of paper  and  for  ancillary purposes like fuel and not as "Raw-Material in the  manufac- ture of paper.     4. Sri Sorabjee, for the Respondent, sought to  maintain that Sodium Sulphate was an essential chemical ingredient in the chemistry of paper technology and that the fact that the ingredient was actually burnt-up or sublimated in the  proc- ess and did not retain its identity in the end-product, will not,  necessarily, detract from its being a "Raw  Material". The relevant test is how essential is the ingredient in  the manufacture. Learned counsel said that in the complexity  of the  chain of chemical reactions in the manufacturing  proc- ess,  undue emphasis on the search for the identity  of  any individual  chemical ingredient ’in the final product  would be  artificial and unrealistic. Sri Sorabjee submitted  that authoritative  scientific treatises on the paper  technology recognise that "Sodium Sulphate" is an essential raw materi- al. Sri Sorabjee referred to the publication of the Food and Agriculture  Organisation  of the United Nations  under  the caption  "Guide for Planning Pulp and Paper Enterprises"  in which the following statement occurs:                        "For any pulp and paper enterprise  a               variety  of  non  fibrous  raw  materials  are               required: water, fuel, power and  paper-making               chemicals  and,  for pulp mills,  pulping  and               bleaching chemicals  .....  "               (p. 270)                         "The sulphate (kraft) pulping  proc-               ess,  now the most common pulping process  for               both  wood and nonwood fibrous raw  materials,               requires  the  purchase  of  salteake  (sodium

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

             sulphate)  and limestone (calcium  carbonate).               De-               331               pending  on  the efficiency  of  the  recovery               system, about 40 to 80 kilogrammes of salteake               and 25 kilogrammes of limestone are needed per               ton of pulp. These chemicals are converted  in               the chemical recovery and causticizing systems               to give sodium hydroxide and sodium  sulphide,               which are the active chemicals in the  pulping               liquor."                                                   (p. 275)     Sri Sorabjee submitted that the Tribunal had consistent- ly taken this view in several cases and that the  department not  having carried those matters up in appeal must be  held to have accepted the correctness of that view. As  instances in  point,  Learned Counsel referred to  two  decisions,  in Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur  Industries Ltd.,  Chandrapur, [1983] ELT 1263 and in Collector of  Cen- tral Excise, Bhubaneswar v. Titaghur Paper Mills, [1985]  21 ELT 901.     Adverting  to appellant’s contention that use of  Sodium Sulphate was at a stage of preparation of the Pulp which  is a  stage  anterior to the actual manufacture of  paper,  Sri Sorabjee submitted that, apart from the fallacy inherent  in the  attempt to dissect an otherwise integrated  process  of manufacture, the definition of ’manufacture’ in Section 2(f) of the ’Act’ which takes with in it all ancillary and  inci- dental  processes,  should secure to render  the  contention insubstantial.     5.  The question, in the ultimate analysis,  is  whether the  input  of Sodium Sulphate in the manufacture  of  paper would  cease to be a "Raw-Material" by reason alone  of  the fact  that  in  the course of the  chemical  reactions  this ingredient  is consumed and burnt-up. The  expression  "Raw- Material" is not a defined term. The meaning to be given  to it  is  the ordinary and well-accepted  connotation  in  the common parlance of those who deal with the matter.     The  ingredients  used  in the  chemical  technology  of manufacture  of  any  end-product  might  comprise,  amongst others, of those which may retain their dominant  individual identity  and character throughout the process and  also  in the end-product; those which as a result of interaction with other  chemicals  or ingredients, might  themselves  undergo chemical  or  qualitative changes and in such  altered  form find themselves in the end-product; those which, like  cata- lytic agents, while influencing and accelerating the  chemi- cal  reactions, however, may themselves remain  uninfluenced and  unaltered  and remain independent of  and  outside  the end-products and those, as here, which might be burnt-up  or consumed in the chemical reactions. The ques- 332 tion  in the present case is whether the ingredients of  the last mentioned class qualify themselves as and are  eligible to be called "Raw Material" for the end-product. One of  the valid  tests, in our opinion, could be that  the  ingredient should be so essential for the chemical processes  culminat- ing in the emergence of the desired end-product, that having regard  to  its importance in and indispensability  for  the process,  it  could  be said that its  very  consumption  on burning-up is its quality and value as raw-material. In such a  case,  the relevant test is not its absence  in  the  end product, but the dependance of the endproduct for its essen- tial presence at the delivery and of the process. The ingre- dient  goes into the making of the end-product in the  sense

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

that without its absence the presence of the end-product, as such,  is rendered impossible. This quality should  coalesce with the requirement that its utilisation is in the manufac- turing process as distinct from the manufacturing apparatus.     6. The decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner  of Sales  Tax, Board of Revenue v. Thomas Stephen &  Co.  Ltd., relied  upon  by Sri Ganguly, does not  really  advance  the appellant’s  case.  The observations therein to  the  effect that "consumption must be in the manufacture of raw material or  of  other  component which go into the  making  of  end- product" were made to emphasise the distinction between  the "fuel"  used  for the kiln to impart the  heat-treatment  to ceramics and what actually went into the manufacture of such ceramics.  The observations, correctly apprehended,  do  not lend  themselves to the understanding that for something  to qualify itself as "Raw-Material" it must necessarily and  in all cases go into, and be found, in the end-product.     7.  We also find no substance in the contention  of  Sri Ganguly  that the process in which the Sodium  Sulphate  was used,  was  anterior to and at one stage  removed  from  the actual  manufacture of paper. Sri Sorabjee’s answer to  this contention  is,  in our view, appropriate.  That  apart  the following  observations  in Collector of Central  Excise  v. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd., cited by Sri Ganguly  himself is a complete answer:               "   .....  Where any particular process,  this               Court  further  emphasised, is  so  integrally               connected  with  the  ultimate  production  of               goods that, but for that process,  manufacture               or  processing of goods would be  commercially               inexpedient,  articles required in that  proc-               ess, would fall within the expression ’in  the               manufacture of goods’  .....  " 333     8. On a consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to the view that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion  that Sodium  Sulphate  was used in the manufacture  of  paper  as "Raw-Material’  within the meaning of the  Notification  No. 105/82-CE dated 28.2.1982.     9. Now a word about Sri Ganguly’s insistence on  drawing a line of strict demarcation between what can be said to  be ’goods’ merely "used" in the manufacture and what constitute goods used as "Raw Material" for the purpose.     We are afraid, in the infinite variety of ways in  which these  problems present themselves it is  neither  necessary nor  wise  to enunciate principles of any  general  validity intended  to cover all cases. The matter must rest upon  the facts of each case. Though in many cases it might be  diffi- cult to draw a line of demarcation, it is easy to discern on which side of the border-line a particular case fails.     Sri Ganguly’s insistence, however, serves to recall  the pertinent observations of an eminent author on the point. It was said:               "   .....  A common form of argument  used  by               counsel  in legal cases is to suggest that  if               the  court decides in favour of  the  opposing               counsel’s arguments, it will become  necessary               to  draw lines which may be very difficult  or               impossible  to draw. "Where will you draw  the               line"? 1s, of course, a question which must be               faced by a legislator who is actually  propos-               ing  to lay down lines for all  future  cases,               but it is not a question which needs in gener-               al  to be faced by common law courts who  pro-               ceed  in  slow  stages, moving  from  case  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

             case  .....  ’’               [See: "Pragmatism and Theory in English  Law:;               page 75; Hamlyn Lectures of 1987]               The  learned  author  recalls  Lord  Lindley’s               "robust  answer" to the question:  Where  will               you draw the line?               "Nothing  is  more common in life than  to  be               unable  to draw the line between  two  things.               Who  can  draw  the line  between  plants  and               animals?  And  yet who has any  difficulty  in               saying that an oak-tree is a plant and not  an               animal?"               [See: Att. Gen v. Brighton & Hove Co-operative               Assoc., [1900] 1 Ch. 276 at p. 282]               334               Again, Lord Coleridge in Mayor of Southport v.               Morris, [1893] 1 Q.B. 359 at 361 said:               "The  Attorney-General has asked where we  are               to draw the line. The answer is that it is not               necessary to draw it at any precise point.  It               is enough for us to say that the present  case               is  on the right side of any line  that  could               reasonably be drawn."     10. In the result for the foregoing reasons, we find  no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. G.N.                                            Appeal  dis- missed. 335