CANNANORE SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. A v. October 15

It may be taken that the word 'hank' has acquired a techni cal meaning in commercial circles and in the absence of any evidence to show contrary intention on the part of the authorities \\ho issued Exts. P-2 and 3 we should have had no difficulty in accepting the contention of the department. Admittedly the length of the cotton yarn in the 'hanks' cleared out of the ap pellant's factory was much more than 840 yards. Hence those 'hanks' cannot be considered as 'hanks' as understood in com mercial circles. But then did the authorities who issued Exts. P-2 and P-3 intend to use the word 'hank' as understood in commercial circles or did they use the word in accordance with the dictionary meaning? We have definite and positive evidence on record to show that the authorities who issued those notifi cations did not use the word 'hank' as understood in commercial circles. Otherwise ihe )1.0tifica(ion issued by the Government on February 16, 1963 hcomes meaningless.

That notification not only explains the term 'hank' as meaning a 'hank' which does not contain more than 768 metres of yarn in plain (straight) reel, it goes further and provides that the notification should bt deemed to have taken effect from the 17th day of October, 1962. First the explanation given in the notification does not accord with the meaning given to the word 'hank' in commercial circles. It says that the word 'hank' means a coil of cotton yarn not more than 768 metres (840 yards) in length and not of 768 metres length. Any coil of cotton yar~ less than 768 metres in length according to that notification has to be considered as a 'hank'. But according to the technical . meaning acquired by the word 'hank' in commercial circles, the length of the cotton yarn in the reel should be neither more nor less than 768 metres ( 840 yards). This notification makes it clear that when the Government issued the notification Exh.

P-2, it intended to give the word 'hank' the meaning "a coil of yarn" and nothing more. Secondly if in Exh. P-2, the word 'hank' has been used in the way it is understood in commercial circles there was no point in 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970]2 S.C.R. giving retrospective effect to the explanation added to Exh. P-2 by the notification datt!il February 16, 1963. The rule making authority's intention is made ft.ither clear by the Government's notification dated September 28, 1963 which explains the word hank to mean a circular coil which does not contain more than It is true that it 1000 metres of yarn in plain (straight) reel. was within the competence of the rule making authority to define the word 'hank' as it though best. The real question for our decision is whether it did use that word 'hank' to convey any technical ineaning when it issued notification Exts. P-2 and P-3. For the reasons mentioned, above we are unable to agree with the department that in those notifications, the word 'hank' had been used in a technical sense.

B~ Seiyed Muhammad, learned Counsel for the department did not support the impugned demand on the basis of the retros pective effect purportea to have been given to the explanation referred to earlier by the notification dated February 16, 1963 (Exh. P-12) for obvious reasons. The rule making authority had not been vested with the power under the Central Excise and Jalt Act to make rules with 1etrospective effect. Therefore the retrospective effect purported to be $iven under Bxh. P-12 was beyond the powers of the rule making authority. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow this appeal and quash the impugned demand. The respondents shall pay costs of the appellant both in this. Court as well as in the High Court. R.K.P.S. Appeal allowed A B c D E