TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the same description. On the basis of the material before us, it is not possible to record a positive finding that Properzi rods and wire rods are treated as distinct items in commercial parlance. Properzi Rod is a wire rod subjected to the properzi process and is used for transmission of high voltage electric current - confirm the judgment of the High Court - appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal 2729 and 2730 of 1982 - - - Dated:- 27-5-1985 - Chandrachud, C.J., R.S. Pathak and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ. M.M. Abdul Khader and N.C. Talukdar, Senior Advocates (Girish Chandra, C.V. Subba Rao and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with them), for the respondents. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate (Krishna Kumar, Miss Bina Gupta and Miss Laxmi Venugopal, Advocates with him), for the appellant. [Judgment per : Chandrachud, CJ.]. - These two appeals involve the question as to whether `Properzi Rods' manufactured and cleared by the appellant, the Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., fall within Entry No. 27(a)(ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1 of 1944 and, if so, under which category of the articles mentioned therein. The Government of India contends for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry reads as follows :- "Aluminium (a)(ii) wire bars, wire rods and castings, not otherwise specified." 4. By an order dated September 1, 1970, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Faridabad, called upon the appellant to clear the Properzi Rods manufactured by it, after payment of duty under Entry No. 27(a)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff on the basis that Properzi Rods are aluminium wire rods. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, on February 7, 1972. The appellant filed a revision against that order under Section 36 of the Act to the Central Government. Simultaneously, the appellant also filed Civil Writ No. 310 of 1972 in the High Court of Delhi, challenging the order of the Deputy Collector. The High Court directed the Government to dispose of the revision application within one month and kept the writ petition pending for admission. The order of the Deputy Collector was set aside by the Government in revision and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. In view of the order of remand, the appellant withdre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re suitable for being used as aluminium cables and conductors. The Properzi process is wholly unknown in the field of manufacture of iron and steel rods. 6. In support of these points, reliance is placed by the appellant upon the expert opinions of Shri V.A. Gadgil, Associate Professor of Metallurgy, College of Engineering, Poona, Dr. K.R. Satyanarayan, Professor and Head of the Department of Metallurgy, College of Engineering, Poona, Dr. R.D. Chaudhari, Professor of Metallurgy, College of Engineering, Poona and Dr. P.R. Khangaonkar, Senior Professor and Head of the Department of Metallurgy, Regional College of Engineering, Nagpur. Reliance is also placed by the appellant on the separate specifications made by the Indian Standards Institution for Aluminium Properzi Rods on the one hand and wire rods on the other. Finally, the appellant draws sustenance to its case from the affidavits filed by Jashwantrai Gangadas Mehta and Shamseer Singh Parmar, the former being a partner in a concern dealing with the sale and distribution of non-ferrous metals and aluminium products and the latter being a managing partner of a concern which deals with the sale and manufacture of aluminium produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previously, it was enjoying an exemption from payment of excise duty by virtue of Notification No. 46/70, dated March 1, 1970, which was rescinded by Notification No. 74/70, dated March 26, 1970. 8. It may be mentioned that in the Aluminium Control Order issued by Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Properzi Rods are mentioned as "Wire Rods". In the Circulars issued by Cable and Conductors Manufacturers Association of India also, such rods are described as "Wire Rods". Undoubtedly, these considerations are not conclusive but, it cannot be denied that they are relevant. They show that Properzi Rods are but a species of wire rods. 9. The specifications issued by the Indian Standards Institution are for ensuring quality control and have nothing to do with the class to which the goods belong in a Tariff Schedule. Considering the use to which the Properzi Rods are put, they may have to meet a different and higher quality control than the ordinary wire rods. But, that does not mean that Properzi Rods are not comprehended within the expression `wire rods'. 10. The very affidavits on which the appellant relies show that Properzi Rods are obtained, in the first place, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (3) S.C.R. 1109, 1115]. The difficulty in applying the principle of these decisions to the instant case is that the contention of the appellant itself in the earlier revision application which was filed by it before the Government of India, was that Properzi Rods had no commercial market as such. That is clear from the Remand Order No. 764 of 1972 dated May 16, 1972 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India. After the remand, the appellant contended once again before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, that Properzi Rods are not "goods" within the meaning of the Central Excise Act since they are neither marketed as such nor are marketable. Commercial parlance assumes importance when goods are marketable. It is therefore not possible to hold that the goods in question are not wire rods. There is prepondering evidence on record to show that they are nothing but a species of wire rods despite the special method of their manufacture and the use to which they are put. We may also add that the statements contained in the affidavits of Jashwantrao Gangadas Mehta and Shamseer Singh Parmar cannot be accepted at their face value. Both of them ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
