DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS Vs. J T CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company who is a manufacturer of aluminium collapsible tubes and rigid cans under a licence granted under the Central Excise and Sales Tax Act (the 'Act'). Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director and a share holder of 1st petitionercompany.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment to Section 2(0 and Tariff Item 27 of the First-1 schedule to the Central Excise Act, effected by Finance Act (2) of 1980. The relevant provisions, viz., Item 27 which stood before its I amendment with effect from 17th June 1980, reads thus :- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) xxxxx (e) Extruded shapes and sections including extruded pipes and tubes. The term, 'Manufacture' as defined under Section 2(f) of the said Act, before its amendment, read thus :- 'manufacture' includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product."

(3.) The aluminium collapsible tubes and rigid cans manufactured by the petitioner No. 1 were chargeable to duty under the Central Excises Act under Tariff Item 27 of I Schedule to the Act. This item as it stood prior to 17-6-80 reads - as : "27. Aluminium, (f) containers made of aluminium. Both Section 2(f) and Item 27 underwent change by Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980. In the definition Section, 'manufacture' after sub-clause (vii) , the following sub-clause was inserted, viz., "(viii) in relation to aluminium, includes lacquering or printing or both of plain containers".