JUDGMENT 1. UNDER the Essential Commodities Act, 1965, the expression 'essential commodity' means, amongst other commodities, 'food-stuffs, including edible oil seeds and oils'. That mustard oil is edible oil admits of little doubt. The question for my consideration in this Rule is whether mustard oil also falls within the classification of 'vegetable non-essential oils' as in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The circumstances in which this Rule was obtained are hereinafter stated in brief. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 carry on business in co-partnership under the name and style of Bharat Rabi Oil Mill (petitioner No. 1). In the said business the petitioners produce mustard oil from mustard seeds with the aid of power driven machine. Up to the year 1956, there was no attempt to impose central excise duty on mustard oil. The Finance Act, 1956, amended the Central Excises and Salt Act, 2944 and added the following item as item 23 in the First Schedule of the latter Act: "Vegetable NON-ESSENTIAL GILS, all sorts, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power." A rate of duty was prescribed for the newly added item this item was re numbered as item 12 by the Finance Act, 1980. When the Finance Act, 1956 was still in its Bill form before the Legislature, the respondent Superintendent of Central Excise addressed the following letter to the petitioners, on February 29, 1956 : "The bearer, Mr. R. Mookerjee, is an Inspector Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise. In order to enable the effective implementation of certain clauses of the finance Bill, 1956, which have been brought into force from the 1st March, 1956, by virtue of a declaration appended to the bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, this office has been empowered, (1) to obtain from you, within 24 hours of the service of this letter, a declaration in the form appended, of all your stocks of Mustard Oil as at the beginning of the day on the 1st March, 1956 : (2) to make a physical verification of such stocks; (3) until such verification has been completed, to look, and place an excise seal on the premises in which the stocks are lying at night or at any other time when work ii not in progress at the premises. " 2. " 2. As far as possible, all issues of Mustard Oil from your manufacturing premises or any premises appurtenant thereto, should please be suspended, or slowed down to the minimum, while the stock taking is in progress. 3. All issues of stocks of any kind of Mustard Oil from the premises intended to be made on or after the 1st March, 1956 have to be made only with the permission of the stock taking or other competent Central Excise Officer and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 4. You are required to extend to the officer your full co-operation, and the co-operation of your staff to accomplish his task as expeditiously as possible, so as to cause the least possible inconvenience to all concerned. " 2. THE petitioners complied with the directions contained in the letter quoted above. Thereafter, on March 3, 1956, the petitioners applied for grant of a license to manufacture goods liable to central duty of excise and, on March 24, 1956, were granted a license in form L.-4 authorising the petitioners to manufacture "vegetable non-essential oil" during the year ending Dec. 31, 1956, within the declared manufactory of the petitioners. The petitioners obtained renewal of the said license during the years 1957 to 1962. The petitioners also paid the excise duty and continued to pay the same for a considerable time. The last of such payments was made by a Challan dated July 24, 1962 (annexure 'f' to the petition ). Since about the year 1062, a trade association, known as Mustard Oil Dealers' Association of Bengal, of Which the petitioners claim membership, raked up the lurking doubt that mustard oil should not be made chargeable to central excise duty on the theory that the same was not vegetable nonessential oil and began protesting against imposition and collection of such duty on mustard oil. The protests were turned down, because the respondent Collector was clearly of the opinion that mustard oil fell under the category of vegetable non-essential oil, within the meaning of section 3 read with item 12 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act and was chargeable to duty as such. The protests were turned down, because the respondent Collector was clearly of the opinion that mustard oil fell under the category of vegetable non-essential oil, within the meaning of section 3 read with item 12 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act and was chargeable to duty as such. Aggrieved by the attitude taken up by the authorities, the petitioners moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for a mandate upon the respondents directing them not to levy duty on the mustard oil and not to prevent the petitioners from removing mustard oil produced by the petitioners without previous payment of duty and obtained this Rule, on August 7, 1962. For reasons with which I am not concerned in this Rule, the respondents exempted mustard oil from the operation of item 12 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act with effect from March 1, 1963. The position now is that the petitioners' have get all that they aspired to have by winning a victory in this Rule, even without the intervention of this Court. Even then Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sen Gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioners invited a judgment from this Court on the points raised by him, on the ground that the petitioners had to deposit considerable amount of money in terms of an injunction granted by this Court and the refund of that amount would depend upon the judgment to be delivered by this Court, I have, therefore, decided to consider the arguments advanced by Mr. Sen Gupta in support of this Rule, mr. Sen Gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioners, argued three points in support of the Rule. He argued, in the first place, that mustard oil was not a non-essential oil but a highly essential cooking medium in many parts of India ; as such, he contended, mustard oil must not be deemed to fail under the category of vegetable nonessential oil. He argued, in the next. place, that the expression 'vegetable non-essential oil' was vague and indefinite and was incapable of being made specifically applicable to mustard oil, without more He lastly contended that in interpreting a taxing statute a Court must be guided by the language used in the statute and if the language of the statute was doubtful the benefit of the doubt must go to the assesses. The arguments advanced by Mr. The arguments advanced by Mr. Sen Gupta are interesting arguments and deserve consideration. The word 'essential' has two distinct meanings in English language. Used as descriptive of the physical or chemical properties of a thing the word means "relating to, constituting, or containing the essence". Used as descriptive of user of a thing, the word means "indispensable or important in the highest degree" (see Chambers Dictionary ). The words "essential oil" appear to be a well-known expression in chemical technology. In Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Volume 9 "essential Oil" is described as : 'the ethereal, volatile, or essential oil-so called because they were believed to represent the quint essence of the odour and flavour of the botanical-differ in composition and properties from fatty or fixed oils, which consist for the must part of glycerides and from mineral or hydrocarbon oils 'an absolutely scientific definition of the term essential or volatile oils is hardly possible, but for all practical purposes they may be defined as odoriferous bodies of an oily nature obtained almost exclusively from vegetable sources, generally liquid (something semisolid or solid) at ordinary temperatures, and volatile without decomposition. No more restricted definition is either advantageous or possible". (page 569 ). From mustard seeds both volatile or essential oil and non-volatile or fixed or fatty oil may be produced. This appears from the book called The Wealth of India (published by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. India- 1948) : "the genus Brassica consists of over 150 species of animal or bienial herbs, several of which are cultivated as oil-seed crops (rape and mustard) or as veetable crops (cabbage, cauliflower ). The seeds of some yield the condiment, mustard A few brassicas furnish fodder and green manure. 3. THE oil-yielding brassicas which are predominantly cross-pollinated, constitute a group, about which considerable confusion exists regarding their identification and nomenclature. Zafar Alam (Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 1945, 15, 173) has discussed the problem of the nomenclature of India oleiferous brassicas grown in the Punjab, and Prain of those grown in eastern India. In India the principal oil-seed crops are yellow sarson, brown sarson, toria and rai. Punjab rai is grown to a limited extent in the central districts of the Punjab. Benarasi rai and white mustard are also grown to a small extent. The seeds of these two species are used for the preparation of table mustard. . In India the principal oil-seed crops are yellow sarson, brown sarson, toria and rai. Punjab rai is grown to a limited extent in the central districts of the Punjab. Benarasi rai and white mustard are also grown to a small extent. The seeds of these two species are used for the preparation of table mustard. . The above table goes to show the percentage of essential oil and fixed oil ordinarily found in oil from mustard seeds. The methods of extraction of essential and fixed oil from mustard seeds are different. This appears from Guenther's book on "essential Oils", Vol. 6, (1952) at page 55: "the seeds of Brassica nigra (L ). Koch and of Brassica juncea (L.) Czerniaew (fam. Cruciferae) contain fixed oils of mild taste, which can be isolated by expression of the seeds in hydraulic presses. The chemical composition of these fatty oils resembles that of oil of rape-seed (Brassica napus L ). Much more important than the fixed oils from the point of view of flavour are the volatile oils derived from the seeds, of Brassica nigra and Brassicd juncea. Both of these varieties are classified as "black Mustard" in the United States Pharmacopoeia and the United States Dispensatory. 4. THE volatile oils are not contained in the seeds, in the free state, but in the form of glucosides. To isolate them from the seeds, it is necessary to remove the fixed oil by expression to submit the pressed cake to fermentation and to distil the fermented mass the volatile oil derived from black mustard seed (Brassica nigra or B. juncea) consists almost entirely of ally1 Isothiocyanate. This compound can also be prepared synthetically. In fact, most of the mustard oil or "allyl Mustard Oil" offered on the market today consists of the synthetic product. " The natural oil has lost much of its former importance; Official standard works in the United States recognize both the natural and the synthetic oils as "volatile oil of mustard" or "allyl Isothiocyanate. " it is not disputed that the petitioners extract only fixed oil from mustard seeds. That being so, the question is whether fixed oil can be properly classified under the generic chemical description 'vegetable non-essential oil'. Mr. Sen Gupta did not dispute the well-known Chemical meaning attached to the expression "essential oil". " it is not disputed that the petitioners extract only fixed oil from mustard seeds. That being so, the question is whether fixed oil can be properly classified under the generic chemical description 'vegetable non-essential oil'. Mr. Sen Gupta did not dispute the well-known Chemical meaning attached to the expression "essential oil". He, however, contended that the expression "vegetable non-essential oil" would not apply to fixed oil or fatty oils derived from mustard seeds. I am unable, to uphold this contention. All vegetable oils, which are riot essential oils, may be rightly classified as non-essential oils and since mustard oil produced by the petitioners does not belong to the classification of essential oil, it is not improper to describe such oil as non-essential oil. From the point of view of user, mustard oil may be treated as an essential cooking medium but because that is so, it does not become chemically anything but non-essential oil. I have, therefore, to overrule the first branch of the contention urged by Mr. Sen gupta The view taken by me on the first branch of the contention urged by Mr. Sen Gupta also disposes of his second contention, because from what I have said hereinbefore it does not appear that the expression "non-essential oil" is vague and incapable of being made applicable to fixed or fatty oil produced by the petitioners from mustard seeds. I have now to consider the last argument of Mr. Sen Gupta, namely that if there is any vagueness attached to a word in a taxing statute, the benefit must go to the assessee. This proposition as a proposition of law is well known. If any authority be needed for the proposition one has to refer to the decision of the House of Lords in (1) I. R. C. v, Bladnoch Distillery Co. Ltd., (1948) I All E. R. 616 and to another decision of the House of Lords in (2) Inland Revenue Comrs. v. Wolfson, (1949) I All. E. R. 865 and also to the observations of the Supreme Court in (3) Banarasi Debt v. Income Tar Officer, Dist. IV, Calcutta, A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1742. But these decisions do not help the petitioners, because from. the discussion above it will appear that there is no such vagueness attached to the expression "vegetable non-essential oil" which must exclude mustard oil from its folds. IV, Calcutta, A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1742. But these decisions do not help the petitioners, because from. the discussion above it will appear that there is no such vagueness attached to the expression "vegetable non-essential oil" which must exclude mustard oil from its folds. The expressions "essential oils" and "non-essential oils" are not strangers to statutory language. As far back as 1879, section 27 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879 (42 and 43 Vict. Chap 21) used the expression "essential oil" as herein below quoted : "The provisions contained in the second section of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter ninety-three, relieving any manufacturer of tobacco from liability to the penalty imposed by the first section of that Act shall not extend to relieve him from such liability in case he shall make use of any oil in the manufacture of roll tobacco other than essential oil for the purpose of flavorings, and olive oil in the process of spinning and rolling up the tobacco. " In this country, the Tariff Act of 1934 in item 15 (6) of its schedule used the expression "vegetable Non-essential Oils not otherwise specified. ' I need not multiply illustration. Suffice it for my purpose to say that before the petitioners started this doubt nobody appeared to have doubted the meaning of the expression 'essential and non-essential oils'. I therefore, hold that the last argument advanced by Mr. Sen Gupta also fails. Before I close this judgment, I need add a word of explanation as to why this Court knowing very little about chemical technology quoted extensively from books of Chemistry in trying to find out the meaning of the words 'essential' and 'non-essential oils'. I can do that no better than by quoting the following passage from the judgment of Lord Denning in (4) Baldwin francis Ltd. v. Patents Appeal Tribunal, (1959) A. C., 663 at p. 691: "My Lords, whenever the meaning of words arises, however technical or obscure, then, unless there is some dispute about it, it is common practice for the court to inform itself by any means that is reliable and ready to hand. Counsel usually give any necessary explanation: or reference may be made to a dictionary, which may be a general dictionary or even a technical one. Counsel usually give any necessary explanation: or reference may be made to a dictionary, which may be a general dictionary or even a technical one. If the subject-matter is too difficult to be resolved by such means, the court can always call in aid an assessor specially qualified to explain it, see section 98 of the Judicature Act, 1925, and this has been done from time to time, see, for instance, Mercer v. Denne (1905), 2 Ch. 538, 544) and Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Southport Corporation, (1956 A. C. 218, 222-223 ). The one thing that the court ought not to do is to refuse jurisdiction in a case because it does not understand the technical terms employed in it. Scientists and engineers are entitled to have their rights enforced and their wrongs redressed as well as anyone else : and the court must possess itself of whatever information is necessary for the purpose. Some judges may have it already because of their previous experience. Others may have to acquire it for the first time. But in either case the information they glean is not evidence strictly so called. When an assessor explains the technicalities, he does not do it on oath, nor can he be cross-examined. And no one ever calls the author of a dictionary to give evidence all that happens is that the court is equipping itself for its task by taking judicial notice of all such things as it ought to know in order to do its work properly. " Under section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act also, a Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books, so as to take judicial notice of matters relating to science. I have, therefore, tried to acquaint myself with the knowledge of technological Chemistry from text books and have decided the points raised before me as best as I could. All the arguments advanced by Mr. Sen Gupta fail and this Rule is discharged with costs-hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs. There is a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 deposited with the Registrar of this Court by way of security for the interim injunction granted by this Court on September 17, 1962. Out of that amount the respondents will be at liberty to withdraw so much as may have become due by way of excise duty up to March 1, 1963. There is a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 deposited with the Registrar of this Court by way of security for the interim injunction granted by this Court on September 17, 1962. Out of that amount the respondents will be at liberty to withdraw so much as may have become due by way of excise duty up to March 1, 1963. Any sum in deposit with the Registrar in excess of that duty must be refunded to the petitioners on proper application being made before the Registrar. I direct the respondents to finish calculation of excise duty realisable from the petitioners within a period of two months from today and to inform the petitioners about the amount due in writing.