INDOFIL CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought several reliefs,mainly challenging the validity of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules forshort). The petitioner also sought the quashing of certain orders made by therespondents under the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner manufactures a commodity calledPlexol-150 which is an oil editive used extensively in the petroleum industry as apour-point depresent and also as a de-waxing aid in solvent de-waxing process. Inthe process of manufacturing this commodity (referred hereafter as the endproduct), there is an intermediate stage at which a resin type commodity emergeswhich is the subject-matter of this writ petition. For the sake of convenience thiscommodity or article may be referred as in-process-material, though according tothe petitioner this in-process-material has no independent identity and it is notmarketable and therefore, it is not "goods" covered by the provisions of the Act.Petitioner has described the entire process as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner asserts that this is not resin known to the market at all andis never bought and sold. This in-process-material, though is a molten liquid,comes into existence as such at an intermediate stage in a continuous and integrated process. In para 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has described theprocess as follows:-

(3.) The petitioner also has produced the affidavit of an expert in the field, byname Dr. S.P. Potnis. He was a Professor of Polymer Technology, Head of Plasticsand Paints Division and Director of Department of Chemical Technology, University of Bombay. He has visited several renowned foreign Universities for technicaldiscussions and collaborative works as could be seen from para 3 of his affidavit.The process is described by him in paras 7 to 10 of his affidavit as follows:-