UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, Messrs Union Carbide India Ltd., Manufacturer Eveready Flashlights (torches) at its factory at Lucknow. The bodies of the torches are made of aluminium. The petitioner-company purchases aluminium slugs and out of them manufactures the bodies of the torches. The process involved is described in paragraph 4 of the petition as follows :-

(2.) Section 3 of the Act provides for the levy of excise duty on all excisable goods set forth in the First Schedule. "Excisable goods" have been defined to mean goods specified in the First Schedule. The goods set out in clause (e) of item No. 27 relating to aluminium are extruded shares and sections including extruded pipes and tubes. Therefore, excise duty on extruded shapes and sections of aluminium including extruded pipes and tubes can validly and legally be levied by the Department. From the statements made in the writ petition it is clear that the "aluminium cans or torch bodies" prepared by the petitioner are extruded shapes of aluminium.

(3.) The contention of Shri Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that Item No. 27(e) covers only those articles which can be called "goods" according to the generally accepted meaning of that word. According to learned counsel, the word "goods'' means finished product which are known in the market and are marketable. He, therefore, urges that Item No. 27(e) is applicable only to such extruded shapes and sections of aluminium as are finished products, are knowing the market and are marketable. According to him, since the "aluminium cans or torch bodies" produced by the petitioner as intermediate products are not finished products and are neither known in the market nor they are marketable, they do not fall within Item 27(e). The second contention is that Item 27 is confined to manufactured goods and that, since in the production of the "aluminium cans or torch bodies" no manufacturing process is involved, the product is not excisable to excise duty. His third and last contention is that the excise duty on Item 27(e) being payable ad valorem no duty can be levied on it since the petitioner's product is not capable of valuation under section 4 of the act.