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

PETITIONER: MILAK BROTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/10/1990

BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 2256            1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 141  1991 SCC  Supl.  (1)  71 JT 1990 (4)   508  1990 SCALE  (2)727

ACT:     Customs Tariff Act, 1975/Indian Tariff Act 1934 Item  13 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act 1934/item 20 of  the  Second Schedule to the Customs  Tariff  Act,  1975: Blanched,  roasted and salted peanuts packed in vacuum  con- tainers---Liability to export duty.

HEADNOTE:     The appellants purchased groundnuts without shell in raw form,  and  after subjecting them to various  processes  and treatment,  packed them in packets and tins which were  then exported.     The  goods  were charged to duty under item  13  of  the Second  Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act 1934  and,  later, under  item 20 of the Second Schedule to the Customs  Tariff Act,  1975  as  ’groundnut kernel’.  The  appellant  however contended  that  the product exported by it  was  "processed peanuts",  and since the product exported by  the  assessee, though  basically  groundnuts,  had been  so  processed  and treated that it lost its quality of germination, it could no longer be described as ’groundnut kernel’. Another  argument of the appellant was that groundnut kernel could be said  to be of two varieties--one an edible variety, and the other  a variety  used  for  oil extraction purposes,  and  that  the tariff entry should be confined only to groundnut kernel  of the oil-yielding variety and not the variety exported by the assessee,  which  could be more appropriately  described  as "processed food" rather than as "groundnut kernel".     The appellant’s contentions were rejected by the Collec- tor of Customs, on appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs  and,  on  further revision, by  the  Government  of India. Subsequently, the contentions were rejected by a Full Bench of the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribu- nal.     Before this Court, the appellants while reiterating  the submissions  made  before the authorities  below,  contended that  the entry in the export tariff should be given  a  re- strictive  interpretation and if there was any ambiguity  or doubt  it should be resolved in favour of the  assessee.  It was further submitted that, in matters of export and import, the func-

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

142 tional test was slowly replacing other tests. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that:  i) the expressions ’groundnut kernel  and  ’groundnut shell’ used in the export entry were of widest  connotation: (ii)  there was no justification whatsoever for  restricting the meaning of the word ’kernel’ on the basis of the capaci- ty  to germinate or to yield oil; (iii) the functional  test may be attracted where there was a bifurcation or  classifi- cation as in the entries, but there was no justification  to import  any such test where the expression. as in  this  in- stance,  was  broad  and unrestricted;  and  (iv)  groundnut kernel  remains  groundnut kernel even  after  roasting  and frying  and  the processing and treatment did not  create  a different product. Dismissing the appeals, this Court.     HELD:  (1)  There is no difficulty or ambiguity  in  the interpretation  of  the tariff entry. Groundnut  is  a  well known  commodity  which is available both in  shell  and  as kernel.  In this context, ’kernel’ clearly means the  grain, seed  or the soft matter inside the shell, whatever the  use or purpose to which it is put, eating or crushing for oil or sowing.  The tariff entry covers all groundnut and there  is no justification for confining it to the germinating or  the oil seed variety alone. [151C-D]      M/s Health ways Dairy Products Co. v. Union of India  & Ors.,[1976] 2 SCC 887, referred to.     (2)  Assuming that two different commercial  commodities fall under the same entry, there is no reason why the  entry should be restricted to only one of them. It can and  should cover both unless one can say that the commodity marketed by the appellant is not ’groundnut kernel’. [151E] Diwan  Chand Chainart Lal’s Case [1977] 39 STC 75,  referred to.       Though  the raw groundnut kernel has undergone a  dry- ing, roasting and frying process, its identity as  groundnut is not lost. Even in the market to which it is exported  and where it is marketed, it is purchased as groundnuts. [I51G]     (4)  The legislature must be presumed to know that,  for import  purposes,  for instance, groundnuts  are  classified under  different headings with differential rates  of  duty. Those entries appear not elsewhere 143 but  in the First Schedule of the very enactment which  sets out the export tariff. If, in spite of such detailed classi- fication  elsewhere, the legislature decided to use a  wider expression  in  the Second Schedule. the  intention  of  the legislature must be given effect to. [152C-D]     (5) Once it is realised that both oil seeds and  roasted groundnuts  exported  by the assessee are capable  of  being described  as  ’groundnut kernel’, which is what  the  entry talks of, the various circumstances pointed out---that  they have  different  markets, that their end use  is  different, that one of them has been excepted from the export ban, that their export is done under the auspices of different  Export Promotion Councils--all fall into place and reveal no incon- sistency with. and have no bearing on, the interpretation to be placed on the entry. [153B-C] Kalaivani  Fabrics  v. Collector, [1989] 44 ELT  219,  Over- ruled.

JUDGMENT:       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 390

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

of 1979.     From the Order dated 14.2. 1978 of the Central Govt.  at New Delhi in Revision Petition No. MB/133/77.       Anil B. Dewan, S.K. Dholakia, P.C. Kapur and P.  Nara- simhan for the Appellants.     Kapil  Sibbal,  Additional Solicitor General  (NP),  Ms. Nisha  Bagchi.  Ms. Sushma Suri and C.V.S. Rao for  the  Re- spondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     RANGANATHAN, J. All these appeals involve a common ques- tion as to whether the goods exported by the appellants  are liable to export duty. There are 67 appeals which relate  to various batches of exports made by the appellants during the period  from 4.3.76 to 14.2.82. They will be disposed of  by this Common order.     The  goods  exported  by the  appellants  are  blanched, roasted and salted peanuts packed in vacuum containers.  The appellants  purchase  groundnuts without shell in  raw  form various parts of Saurashtra in the State of Gujarat.  There- after,  they  are  sorted out  into  different  sizes-small, medium  and big. The medium and small sizes  are  separated. Dust  and  husk are cleaned out and other  foreign  material removed.  The commodity then goes to a dry roaster where  it is roasted at a 144 temperature  of 150 deg.C. This results in reduction of  the moisture  and destruction of enzymes to a  considerable  ex- tent.  It is also stated that by this process any fungus  or aflotoxin  is  removed. After dry roasting, the  product  is cooled down with the aid of a blower so that the skin of the groundnuts become loose and the groundnut contracts.  There- after,  it goes through automatic blanching  machines.  This separates  the skin of the groundnut and on removal  of  the skin  it  becomes white. Thereafter, the seeds  are  put  on running tables and picked, according to uniform sizes,  with the aid of an electric eye sorter. The commodity  thereafter goes  to  a frying section for being subjected to  deep  oil bath  frying in an automatic fryer. They are then  subjected to  anti-oxident chemicals and thereafter sent  through  the blower  for being cooled down. The extra oil is sucked  out. They  are then subjected to a glazing process and are  given permeated  chemicals  and salt treatment and are  packed  in packets and tins.     The goods thus exported by the appellants are charged to duty  under  item 13 of the Second Schedule  to  the  Indian Tariff  Act  1934 and. later, under item 20  of  the  Second Schedule  to the Customs Tariff Act. 1975. The entry is  the same  under both enactments but the rate of duty is  differ- ent. The entry reads: Item N0.  Name of article             Rate of duty 13 20    Groundnut:-          (i) Groundnut Kernel      Rs.810/1500 per tonne          (ii) Groundnut in shell      Rs.600/1125 per tonne     The appellant contended that the product exported by  it was  "processed peanuts" and that it did not fail under  the tariff  entries above extracted. The first line of  argument of the assessee was that the item ’groundnut kernel’  refers to groundnut seeds, the basic characteristic of which is the quality  of  germination. It was submitted that,  since  the product  exported by the assessee, though basically  ground- nuts,  had  been so processed and treated that it  lost  its quality  of germination, it could no longer be described  as ’groundnut kernel’. The second line of argument put  forward on behalf of the appellant was that the entry in the  export tariff  referred only to groundnut kernel used for  oil  ex-

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

traction. It was pointed out that groundnut in shell as well as  groundnut kernel can be said to be of two  varieties-one an  edible  variety  and the other a variety  used  for  oil extraction  purposes.  While  it is true that it  is  not  a mutually  exclusive  classification  in  that  perhaps   all groundnut is capable of being eaten or of being 145 processed  to yield oil, the submission was that  these  two varieties  of groundnut kernels or groundnut in  shell  were two different trade commodities. They had different  charac- teristics;  they  were meant for different  markets.;  their end-use  was different; and their prices as well as mode  of pricing were totally different. Referring to entries in this regard  in the BTN (British Trade Nomenclature), the  Indian Import Tariff as well as the Indian Import Export Policy, it was  contended  on behalf of the appellant  that  the  entry should be confined only to groudnut kernel of the oil yield- ing  variety and not the variety exported by the  appellant, which  could be more appropriately described  as  "processed food" rather than as groundnut kernel.     The appellant’s contention, initially put forward before the  Assistant  Collector of Customs in an  application  for refund, was rejected by the Collector of Customs, on  appeal by  the Central Board of Excise and Customs and, on  further revision, by the Government of India under the then existing procedure. So far as the subsequent periods of exports  were concerned, the contentions of the appellant were  considered and  rejected by a Full Bench of the Customs,  Excise   Gold Control  Appellate Tribunal. The appellant preferred a  Spe- cial Leave Petition from the order of the Central Government in  revision dated 14.2. 1978, which was admitted  and  num- bered  as  Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1979. Against  the  other orders of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred  appeals to this Court under section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962.     On  behalf of the appellants, a number of  circumstances have  been relied upon to justify the distinction sought  to be  made between groundnut kernel simpliciter  and  blanched and roasted groundnuts exported by the assessee. It will  be convenient  to  summarise the points made on behalf  of  the appellant here: (1)  In the Indian Trade Classification (I.T.C.), which  has been  published by the Government of India for  purposes  of foreign trade, there is a bifurcation in the  classification between  the oil seeds and roasted nuts. There  are  various revisions of this classification. Upto 1st April, 1972,  the I.T.C.  classified  oil seeds. oilnuts and  oil  kernels  in Division 22. The various items occurring under this Division were as follows: Code No.      Description                  Unit of Quantity Group 221--Oil seeds, oilnuts and oil kernels 146 221.1        Groundnuts (Peanuts), green.              whether or not shelled (excluding              flour and meal) 221.1001     Groundnut kernels. H.P.S. 221.1002     Groundnut kernels. N.E.S. 221.1003     Groundnut in shell. H.P.S.         TONNE 221.1004     Groundnut in shell. N.E.S. As  against  the above. in group No. 053. roasted  nuts  are specified as below: 053.9009 Others (roasted nuts including groundnuts)     In  a revised alphabetic index to the  commodities,  the relevant code numbers for various commodities pertaining  to groundnuts are as follows: Commodity                            Code No.

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

Groundnut in Shell HPS              221.1003 Groundnut in Shell NES              222.1004 Groundnut kernels HPS               222.1001 Groundnut kernels NES               222.1002 Groundnut oil, crude                423.4001 Groundnut oil purified              423.4002 Groundnut oil, deodorized           423.4003 Groundnut oil, hydrogenated         431.2001 Groundnut oil cake and meal        1081.3201 Groundnut roasted                   058.9107     In  the  more recent classification  heading  No.  12.02 refers  to  groundnuts,  not roasted  or  otherwise  cooked, whether or not shelled 147 or  broken.  The unit of quantity in which these  goods  are sold is tonne. This chapter deals with various types of  oil seeds  like soya beans copra, linseed, rape or colza  seeds, sunflower  seeds, palm nuts and kernels and other oil  seeds and  oleaginous fruits. On the other hand edible  nuts  come under heading 20.08, which reads thus: "Fruit,  nuts  and other edible parts of  plants,  otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or  other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere  speci- fied or included      --  Nuts, ground-nuts and other seeds, whether  or  not mixed together:      -- Ground-nuts                                    Kg.      -- Other, including mixtures      -- Cashew nut, roasted                            Kg.      -- Nuts, prepared or preserved                    Kg.      -- Other roasted nuts and seeds n .e.s.           Kg."     (2)  A similar classification has also been  made  under the  BTN.  Chapter 12 deals with oil  seeds  and  oleaginous fruit, miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit, industrial and medical plants, straw and fodder. Note i under this  Chapter reads thus: 1. Heading No. 12.01 is to be taken to apply, inter alia, to ground-nuts,  soya  beans, mustard seeds, oil  poppy  seeds, poppy  seeds  and copra. It is to be taken not to  apply  to coconuts or other products of heading No. 08.01 or to olives (Chapter 7 or Chapter 20). Heading 12.01 reads: "Oil  seeds  and  oleaginous fruit,  whole  or  broken--This heading  covers seeds and fruit of a kind used for  the  ex- traction (by pressure or by solvents) of edible or industri- al  oils and fats, whether they are imported for  that  pur- pose, forsowing or for other purposes. It does not, however, include  olives  (Chapter 7), coconuts  (heading  08.01)  or certain seeds and fruits from which oil may be extracted but which  are primarily used for other purposes,  e.g.  walnuts and almonds (heading 08.05), apricot, peach and plum kernels (heading 12.08) and cocoa beans (heading 18.01)". 148 It  is  also  stated that the heading  covers,  inter  alia, ground-nuts (except roasted ground-nuts--heading 20.06).  As against this heading 20.06, which deals with fruit otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or spirit, carries the following sub-heading: (3)  Almonds, ground-nuts, areca (or betel) nuts  and  other nuts,  dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted,  whether  or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives.     (3)  Even under the Customs Tariff, the first  Schedule, which deals with import, contains a similar  classification. Chapter 12 and note 1 to the Chapter are the same as in BTN.

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

Item  12.01 reads--oil seeds and oleaginous fruit, whole  or broken--(1)not  elsewhere  specified (2) Copra.  Chapter  20 deals with preparations of vegetables, fruit or other  parts of plants. It contains a note that the Chapter covers edible plants.  parts  of plants and roots of plants  conserved  in syrup (for example, ginger) and roasted groundnuts.     (4)  It is pointed out that the goods of  the  appellant are  exported through the medium of Processed  Foods  Export Promotion  Council, Delhi, whereas groundnuts  intended  for oil extraction purposes are exported through the Indian  Oil and  Oil Produce Exporters’ Association, Bombay. This  indi- cates that the customers for two types of goods are  totally different.     (5) 0n 14th July, 1976, the Government of India  decided to  ban  with immediate effect export of  HPS  (Hand  Picked Seeds)  groundnuts  (both  in shell and  kernel),  which  is canalised  through  Indian Oil and  Oil  Produce  Exporters’ Association.  However,  by  an  export  trade  notice  dated 8.9.76,  the  Government of India clarified  that  the  item "blanched  and  roasted groundnut kernels",  does  not  fall within  the purview of Exports Control Order, 1968  and  its export is allowed without any licensing formalities.     (6)  It has been pointed out that the Collector of  Cus- toms  used to levy and recover an agricultural cess  on  the goods in question until the Government of India, by an order of 1976, held that the roasted and salted peanuts/groundnuts exported  by the assessee were not liable to cess under  the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940.     (7)  It  is pointed out that the  packed  roasted  seeds exported  by  the appellants are more value added  than  raw groundnut kernel used 149 for  other  purposes. The assessee’s product  is  packed  in vacuum  containers and sold in terms of  kilograms,  whereas other  groundnuts are exported in bags or drums and sold  in tomes.  It would not be correct to bring both of them  under same classification for export purposes.     Relying  on the above points of difference,  Shri  Divan and Dholakia, appearing on behalf of the appellant vehement- ly  contend  that the entry in the export tariff  should  be given  a restrictive interpretation. Reliance is  placed  in this  context  on  a judgment of the Madras  High  Court  in Kalaivani  Fabrics  v.  Collector, [1989] 44  E.L.T.  219  a direct decision on the present issue. Reference is made also to the cases cited therein and, in particular, to the ruling of this Court in M/s. Healthways Dairy Products Co. v. Union of  India  & Ors., [1976] 2 S.C.C. 887. Shri  Divan  submits that  if  there is any ambiguity or doubt it should  be  re- solved  in favour of the assessee. He contends  that,  while the  taxing authorities, on whom the onus lies, have  merely rested  on  the dictionary meaning of the  .word  ’groundnut kernel’, the assessee has placed a lot of material show that there  are two different commercial varieties  of  groundnut kernel.  He submits that, in matters of export  and  import, the  functional  test is slowly replacing  other  tests,  an approach clearly indicated by the classifications under  the BTN, ITC and the import tariffs. Shri Dholakia, appearing on behalf of the appellant in one of the appeals, very strongly urges that the commodity known as groundnut kernel  consists of two entirely different varieties or classes  particularly in  matters of trade. There is a sea of  difference  between the  groundnut kernel which is exported as an oil  producing variety  and the roasted peanuts which are exported more  or less  as  a ’processed food’ by the appellant.  The  produce exported by the appellants has no oil content; it is incapa-

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

ble of being used for germinating purposes; its market,  its unit  of quantity of sale, itS price and even its  exporters are  totally different viewed from the commercial  point  of view,  it is impossible to mix up these two varieties  under one  common heading and this could not have been the  inten- tion  of the export tariff. He, therefore, submits that  the export tariff item should be restricted only to one of these varieties,  namely, the oil seed variety or the  germinating variety and should not be extended to the roasted items sold by the assessee.     Shri  Dholakia also raised a point that the  appellant’s factory  was located in a free trade zone trod that,  having regard  to  the various notifications of the  Government  of India,  the Government was estopped from levying any  export duty on its products. This last contention of Shri  Dholakia is, however, a totally new one. The necessary facts to 150 found any such promissory estoppel have not been put forward or considered by any of the assessing or appellate  authori- ties.  We,  therefore, decline to permit  Shri  Dholakia  to raise  this question at this belated stage. His  application for urging additional grounds in this regard is rejected.     On the other hand Ms. Nisha Bagchi, who argued the  case on  behalf of the Union of India very ably,  submitted  that the  expressions  ’groundnut kernel’ and  ’groundnut  shell’ used  in the export entry. were of the  widest  connotation. She referred to the dictionary meanings of the word ’kernel’ and submitted that there is no justification whatsoever  for restricting  its  meaning on the basis of  the  capacity  to germinate  or to yield oil. She submitted that the  reliance placed  on  behalf  of the appellants on the  BTN,  ITC  and Import  Tariff  classifications was  totally  misplaced.  In fact,  she contended, the very fact that the  export  tariff avoids all these classifications and uses a wide expression, which is capable of taking in both the edible as well as the oil  seed varieties of the groundnuts, supports her  conten- tion that, so far as export tariff is concerned, the  legis- lature intended no limitations whatsoever. In support of her contention as to the wide meaning of the expression ’ground- nut  kernel’,  she relied on certain  observations  of  this Court in State v. Shanmagha Vils Cashewnut Factory, [1953] 4 S.T.C.  205  and of the Madras High Court  in  Binod  Cashew Corporation  v.  Deputy Commercial Tax  Officer,  [1986]  61 S.T.C. 1. She submitted that the interpretation sought to be placed on the entries in the export tariff by the  appellant will  carve  away a substantial category of  the  goods  de- scribed  in the wide tariff entry from its scope. So far  as agricultural  cess is concerned, she pointed out,  .rightly, that it was leviable only in respect of "seeds", an  expres- sion  that  imports a concept of a  capacity  to  germinate, particularly,  in  an agricultural context.  Obviously,  the groundnut kernel, roasted and salted, could not be described as  ’seeds’  and.  therefore, the Government  of  India  had rightly exempted them from agricultural cess. The very  fact that  the export tariff uses the expression ’groundnut  ker- nel’  instead of ’seed’ also points to the  distinction  be- tween the two. According to counsel, the functional test may be attracted where there is a bifurcation or  classification as in the tariff entries referred to on behalf of the appel- lant  but there is no justification to import any such  test where  the  expression, as in this instance,  is  broad  and unrestricted.  Referring to the exemption from  export  ban, learned  counsel  submitted that the very fact that  it  was considered  necessary  to exempt the  blanched  and  roasted peanuts  from the export ban indicates that  otherwise  they

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

would have been included in the export ban. I.earned counsel took us through the 151 orders  of  the appellate authorities and the  tribunal  and submitted that they have taken a correct view in the  matter which does not call for any interference. She submitted that groundnut kernel remains groundnut kerneI even after  roast- ing and frying. The process, though described elaborately on behalf  of  the  appellant,  does  not  create  a  different product.  This,  she  pointed out, was the  finding  of  the appellate authorities. There is no justification, therefore. counsel  contended. to read any limitation into  the  export entry.  She urged that we should accept the  conclusion  ar- rived  at by the departmental authorities and  the  tribunal and dismiss these appeals.     Having  considered the submissions of both  parties,  we are  of  opinion that the contention of the  Revenue  should prevail. To our mind, there is no difficulty or ambiguity in the interpretation of the tariff entry. Groundnut is a  well known  commodity  which is available both in  shell  and  as kernel.  In this context, ’kernel’ clearly means the  grain, seed  or the soft matter inside the shell, whatever the  use or purpose to which it is put, eating or crushing for oil or sowing.  The tariff entry covers all groundnut and there  is no justification for confining it to the germinating or  the oil  seed variety alone. On behalf of the appellant,  it  is emphasised  that  the  goods exported by  the  assessee  and groundnut oil seeds are totally different commercial commod- ities.  It is submitted that Diwan Chand Chaman  Lal’s  case [1977] 39 S.T.C. 75 says so and that the various classifica- tion lists produced prove this. Even the acceptance of  this argument does not carry the appellant’s case to the  desired result.  Assuming that two different commercial  commodities fail under the same entry, there is no reason why the  entry should be restricted to only one of them. It can and  should cover both unless one can say that the commodity marketed by the appellant is not ’groundnut kernel’.     We  are  not convinced that the goods  exported  by  the assessee have ceased to be groundnuts in the ordinary accep- tation  of  the term or that they have  become  a  different commodity,  say, a processed food (indeed, there is no  such classification  in the tariff entry). The decision in  Diwan Chand  (Chaman Lal, [1977] 39 STC 75 turned on the  descrip- tion of groundnuts in Schedule C of the Punjab Sales Tax Act as  a  species  of oil seeds and it was  held  that  parched groundnuts  constituted a different commodity. But the  fact is  that,  though the raw groundnut kernel has  undergone  a drying. roasting and frying process, its identity as ground- nut is not lost. Even in the market to which it is  exported and where it is marketed, it is purchased only as groundnuts (or peanuts, as they are called in the U.S.A.). May be there are two 152 different  commodities but both are known only  as  ’ground- nuts’.  The argument that the scope of the entry  should  be restricted  because of the two-fold classification  existing elsewhere  between groundnuts as "oil-seeds" and  groundnuts as  "fruits, nuts and edible substances" does not appeal  to us.  In the first place, it does not meet the argument  that basically  both items are only varieties of  groundnuts  and hence  not taken out of the relevant entry. Secondly,  there is force in the argument of State counsel that the  legisla- ture has, deliberately, not adopted, for the purposes of the Second Schedule, the minute multiclassification of the First Schedule  and  allied  classifications.  Unlike  the  Import

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

Tariff, the BTN and the ITC, there is no sub-classification’ attempted  in  the  export entry. The  legislature  must  be presumed  to know that, for import purposes,  for  instance, groundnuts  are  classified under  different  headings  with differential  rates of duty. Those entries appear not  else- where but in the First Schedule of the very enactment  which sets out the export tariff. The First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act refers to seeds, oil-seeds and oil in section  II and talk only of canned fruits and vegetables in section  IV (dealing  with products of food-preparing  industries).  The entries  in  the  Customs Tariff relating  to  imports  have already  been  touched upon. If, in spite of  such  detailed classification  elsewhere, the legislature decided to use  a wider  expression in the Second Schedule, the  intention  of the  legislature  must  be given effect  to.  Shri  Dholakia submitted  that while the need to restrict imports  necessi- tated a detailed enumeration and precise classification, the export  duty is levied only on a short list of  items.  This may  be  so but this point of distinction is not  enough  to explain  why,  when  an entry finds a place  in  the  export tariff, it should not receive its normal interpretation  but should  receive  one  circumscribed by the  entries  in  the import tariff or other classifications.     A  point was also made by Sri Dholakia that,  since  the export  duty  is on the basis of tonnes and it is  only  the groundnut oil seed that is exported in units of tonnes,  the entry  should be confined to this commodity alone. This,  we are  afraid, is a very precarious basis for the  interpreta- tion  of the body of the entry. In this context,  we  should also  point  out that no difficulty,  anomaly  or  absurdity arising  out of the computation of export duty in  terms  of tonnes  on  these  goods was brought to the  notice  of  the authorities  at  any stage. It may perhaps  have  helped  if material  had been placed before the authorities as  to  the nature  and magnitude of the exports of the two  classes  of groundnuts, their relative prices and the duty impact there- on.  In the absence of any such material, we find it  diffi- cult  to hold that the commodity in question should  be  ex- cluded because of the mode of computation of duty 153 prescribed by the tariff entry. ’     Once  it is realised both oil seeds and roasted  ground- nuts exported by the assessee are capable of being described as ’groundnut kernel’, which is what the entry talks of. the various circumstances pointed out--that they have  different markets,  that their end use is different, that one of  them has been excepted from the export ban. that their export  is done under the auspices of different Export Promotion  Coun- cils--all fall into place and reveal no inconsistency  with, and  have no bearing on, the interpretation to be placed  on the entry.     For  these reasons, we are of opinion that the stand  of the Revenue has to be upheld and the decision of the  Madras High  Court  in Kalaivani Fabrics (supra)  overruled.  These appeals,  therefore,  fail and are dismissed.  We,  however, make no order as to costs. R.S.S.                                         Appeals  dis- missed. 154