Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1977, decided on 10th March, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 23‑9‑1975 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition 1016 of 1965).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Oilseeds Committee Act (IX of 1946), S. 3(1)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether extraction of maize oil conformed to S.3(1)(a) of Act of 1946 so as to justify levy of cesses.

‑‑‑Words and phrases‑‑Words not defined in statute‑‑Meaning to be attributed‑‑When meaning given is contrary to, or inconsistent with expressed intention of word or involves any absurdity, repugnance, or inconsistency, it is only then that grammatical sense is modified, extended or abridged so as to avoid any ambiguity, but no further.

‑‑‑S. 2(e)‑‑"Oilseeds" not defined in S.2(e) but merely recites "Oilseeds does not include coconuts"‑‑Provision of S.2(e), therefore, refers to Oilseeds with the exception of coconut‑‑Word "oilseed", therefore, is used in totality to include all oil yielding seeds irrespective of their oil contents, which, is the expressed intention of the word.

‑‑‑ Words 'seed' and 'grain'‑‑Meaning.

‑‑‑S. 2(e)‑‑"Seed"‑‑"Corn", whether a seed.

The word "seed" is to mean "flowering plant's unit of reproduction capable of developing into another such plant". "Grain" is defined to mean "fruit or seed of a cereal such as wheat or corn. Essentially, therefore, the corn is also a seed though being an edible grain. It is classified as a cereal, nonetheless it remains a seed which when sown can germinate into a new plant. There is, therefore, no magic if it is regarded as a food-grain by some sources and for that matter it can have no different meaning than that of an ordinary "seed".

Concise Oxford Dictionary, New Edn. p. 1028 ref.

‑‑‑S. 2(e)‑‑"Oilseed"‑‑Definition‑‑"Oilseed" includes all varieties of seeds which are oil bearing and from which oil is extracted.‑‑[words and phrases].

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edn. , p. 1694 ref.

‑‑‑S. 2(6)‑‑Maize, whether a seed.

The argument that maize, if crushed, would not produce oil as it is only from maize germ which after being separated and dried that oil can be extracted, therefore, the germ as it cannot germinate cannot be regarded as an oilseed, is untenable as different seeds have different structures containing oil‑bearing components which are necessary for the germination of the seed and for the growth of the plant till a particular stage, and, therefore, that distinction by itself cannot alter the character of the maize from not being a seed.

What has to be seen is as to what is produced by the plant, and if that satisfies the definition of a seed, that is, it is capable of germinating into a plant when sown, then that is enough, as it conforms to the test.

Kasturi Seshagiri Pal & Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of South Kanara A I R 1962 Mys. 1 ref.

Pakistan Jute Mills Association v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, East Zone, Chittagong P L D 1970 Dacca 136 distinguished.

‑‑‑S. 3(1)(a)‑‑Cess on "all oils extracted from oilseeds crushed in any mill"‑‑Maize seeds‑‑Word "crushed" includes not only extraction of oil directly by applying, pressure on oilseeds, but also indirectly, that is, by applying pressure at intermediary stages depending upon structure of oil seed and its contents so as to destroy natural condition, shape or integrity‑‑Processes involved in extracting oil resulting in disintegration of maize seeds and separation of their germs, which, in turn, are crushed to produce oil, held, fulfil requirement of S.3(1)(a).‑‑[Words and Phrases].

‑‑Ss. 2(e) & 3(1)(a)‑‑Maize, held, was an oilseed within meaning of Ss.2(e) & 3(1)(a) and there was no infraction of charging S.3(1)(a) by process involved in extracting oil from it.

Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Munir A. Sheikh, Additional Attorney‑General for Pakistan and Ch. Fazle Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 2: Ex parte.

Date of hearing: 10th March, 1986.

The facts averred are:

The appellant, herein, is a limited company and manufactures maize starch as a main product. In that process, it also produces its by‑products by various subsidiary processes, that is, gluten meal, cattle-food, concentrated maize solubles and oil. The percentage of oil produced varies from 1.5 to 2.5 per cent by weight of the total raw material processes. The raw material used for the manufacture of these articles is maize. The process employed is that maize is first steeped in water containing sulphur dioxide (SO 2) for 48 hours to soften it, where after it is passed through loose attrition mills in a moist state which causes an individual seed, to tear apart without its being ground or crushed. The next stage is that the seeds are passed through floatation tanks in which the oil bearing maize germs separate and float away as a waste product. The seeds are then ground and further processed to separate them into individual components of starch, gluten and fiber. The germs are later dried and passed through mechanical extractors to obtain oil from them. At no time is maize crushed to obtain maize oil and whatever is obtained is a marginal by‑product in a very small quantity. It may also be noted here that the appellant had obtained licence No.6 for manufacturing oil in 1964 which was renewed uptil 1986.

By letter, dated 5th July, 1962, the Secretary, Food and Agriculture Council, Pakistan, Karachi (respondent No.l herein), informed the Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi and others, that the appellant was not submitting its returns, therefore, the appellant should be directed to submit the same to the Council's Secretariat. However, the appellant in its communication to the Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore, dated 13‑8‑1962 took the stand that maize was not in the category of recognised "oil seeds" for the levy of cesses under the Oil seeds Committee Act, 1946. Thereafter, there was further exchange of. correspondence on the subject, and it was again emphasized by the appellant that the word "seed" meant a reproductive germ of a flowering plant, whereas the germs in maize seeds, when separated, and sown cannot germinate. Accordingly, they could not be categorised as seeds. It was further asserted that maize is a foodgrain and not an oilseed according to the views of the Oilseed Botanist, Punjab Agriculture Institute, Lyallpur, Municipal Committee, Lyallpur and Anjuman‑e‑Aarhtian, Lyallpur. It was also treated as a foodgrain in the Crop Report published in the Punjab Gazette, dated 11th of April, 1975 as it was bracketed alongwith other food grains such as wheat, barley, rice, jawar, bajra, etc. This plea was not accepted and by letter dated 18th of May, 1964, the Secretary, Food and Agriculture Council, directed the Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore to realise the cases under the Act from the date of establishment of the Mill.

The appellant thereupon challenged this levy of cases in the High Court through Writ Petition No.1016 of 1965, and by judgment dated 23rd of September, 1975, the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that maize was an "oilseed" and that the cases levied under section 3 (1) of the Oilseeds Committee Act, 1946, was justified.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the extraction of maize oil conformed to section 3 (1) (a) of the Act so as to justify the levy of cesses.

Clause (e) of section 2 of the Act does not define oilseeds. It merely recites: "oilseeds" does not include coconuts." The charging section is 3 (1) (a) of the said Act and so much of it, as is relevant, reads as under:‑

"(a) on all oils extracted from oilseeds crushed in any mill in Pakistan, whether the oilseeds are produced in or imported from outside Pakistan, a duty of excise at the rate of one anna per maund, and

(b) on all oilseeds exported out of Pakistan to a destination outside Pakistan, a duty of customs at the rate of two annas per maund."

It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the oilseeds are not defined in the Act, they should mean as understood in the commercial parlance, that is, they should be predominantly oil bearing. If this meaning was to be given then it would not be its plain grammatical meaning according to the settled rule of interpretation. The principle is that when this meaning is contrary to, or inconsistent with the expressed intention of the word or involves any absurdity, repugnance, or inconsistency, it is only than that the grammatical sense is modified, extended, or abridged so as to avoid any ambiguity, but no further. Here this is not the case. In the statute, clause (e) merely refers to oilseeds with the exception of coconuts. Obviously, the word "oilseeds" is used in totality to include all oil yielding seeds irrespective of their oil contents, which, in our view, is the pressed intention of the word.

The word "seed" is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, New Edition, at page 1028 to mean "flowering plant's unit of reproduction capable of developing into another such plant." Grain is defined to mean "fruit or seed of a cereal such as wheat or corn, in the same Dictionary at page 464. Essentially, therefore, the corn is also a seed' though being an edible grain. It is classified as a cereal, nonetheless it remains a seed which when sown can germinate into a new plant. There is, therefore, no magic if it is regarded as a foodgrain by some sources and for that matter it can have no different meaning then that of an ordinary "seed".

In Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, at page 1694, an "oilseed" is defined to mean "any seed from which oil is expressed, as rapeseed, linseed, etc." It would, accordingly, include all varieties of seeds which are oil bearing and from which oil is extracted.

Again the argument that maize, if crushed, would not produce oil as it is only from maize germ which after being separated and dried that oil can be extracted, therefore, the germ as it cannot germinate cannot be regarded as an oilseed, is untenable as different seeds have different structures containing oil bearing components which are necessary for the germination of the seed and for the growth of the plant till a particular stage, and, therefore, that distinction by itself cannot alter the character of the maize from not being a seed. More or less a similar argument was raised in the case of coconut in Kasturi Seshagiri Pal and Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of South Kanara A I R 1962 Mysore 1, that a coconut could not be regarded as an oilseed within the meaning of section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act, as without its husk it was incapable of developing into another coconut plant when planted, and, therefore, that variety of coconut should be excluded from the category of an oilseed. This was repelled and it was observed as under:

"A coconut as ordinarily understood, is the coconut grown on the top of a coconut tree with its husk and shell and if that coconut is capable of developing into another coconut plant when planted, it is not possible in our opinion, to hold that a coconut is not an oilseed because, a coconut without the husk is incapable of developing into another plant when planted.

What has to be seen is as to what is produced by the plant, and if that satisfies the definition of a seed, that is, it is capable of germinating into a plant when sown, then that is enough, as it conforms to the test.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the oilseed should be construed in a way to mean that it should be predominantly oil bearing and that this meaning should be accepted as it benefited the citizen, is also misconceived, and hence the reliance placed on Pakistan Jute Mills Association v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, East Zone, Chittagong, P L D 1970 Dacca 136, is also out of place as the expressed intention of the legislature admits of no two meanings.

Now the charging section, namely 3(1)(a) of the Oilseeds Committee Act, provides for cesses on "all oils extracted from oilseeds crushed in any mill." In the absence of any qualification or methodology as to in what manner the seeds are to be crushed, the word "crushed" should be understood in a wider sense so as to include not only the extraction of oil directly by applying preseure on the oilseeds, but also indirectly, that is, by applying pressure at intermediary stages depending upon the structure of the oilseed and its contents so as to destroy the natural condition, shape or integrity of its components.

Obviously, the processes involved in extracting the oil result in the disintegration of the maize seeds and the separation of their germs which, in turn, are crushed to produce the oil. There is, therefore, the fulfilment of the requirement of the charging section as was held by the High Court.

For all these reasons, maize is an oilseed within the meaning of sections 2(e) and 3(1)(a) of the Oilseeds Committee Act, and that there is no infraction of the charging section by the process involved in extracting oil from it.

The appeal, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.

M.B.A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.