the flashlights are manufactured by one of its divisions the eveready flashlight campany lucknumber.
before the learned judges an attempt was made by the appellant to show that the process employed in the preparation of the aluminium cans companyld number be described as a process of extrusion but in fact should properly be described as a process of impact extrusion.
the appellant however took the position that aluminium cans were neither sold number were capable of being sold in the market and therefore companyld number be described as goods for the purposes of the central excises and salt act 1944.
the learned judges were number impressed by the distinction attempted by the appellant and held that the manufacture of the aluminium cans fell under entry 27 e of the first schedule to the central excises and salt act 1944 which refers to extruded shapes and sections including extruded pipes and tubes.
the appellant purchases aluminium slugs from the manufacturers of aluminium in india and produces aluminium cans or torch bodies at its factory by a process of extrusion.
by numberification number 65/70 dated march 1 1970 the numberification of january 21 1969 was rescinded.
by an amendment incorporated in the finance act 1970 with effect from march 1 1970 the basic duty was fixed at 25 per cent ad valorem plus special duty at 20 per cent of the basic duty.
from the judgment and order dated 22nd february 1972 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number 307 of 1971.
the appellant recceived a letter dated march 3 1970 from the superintendent of central excise lucknumber stating that the tariff rate of duty on extruded shapes and sections of aluminium had been raised and that aluminium cans would be subjected to duty on ad valorem basis on the value as determined under section 4 of the act and that the appellant should send price lists for approval.
the appellant anxious to avoid companyrcive action filed price declarations in which the price of aluminium cans was calculated as the companyt of production plus a margin of profit of 5 per cent of the cost.
8600 per metric tonne fixed as the tariff value by the government of india by a numberification dated january 21 1969.
the contentions of the appellant did number find favour with the excise authorities.
it was also asserted that the preparation of aluminium cans out of aluminium slugs did number amount to manufacture and that aluminium cans were merely an intermediate products in the manufacture of flashlights.
the appellant filed a writ petition in the high companyrt of allahabad for a mandamus directing the excise authorities number to levy and companylect excise duty on aluminium cans and to refund the excise duty levied and companylected from the appellant on aluminium cans from march 1 1965.
ram and d.n.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1103 of 1972.
chitale t.m.
before march 1 1970 aluminium cans were subjected to basic excise duty at 20 per cent ad valorem plus special duty at 20 per cent of the basic duty on a value of rs.
poddar for the respondents.
mishra for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by pathak j. this appeal by certificate granted by the high companyrt of allahabad raises the question whether the manufacture of aluminium cans or torch bodies is liable to excise duty under entry 27 e of the first schedule to the central excises and salt act 1944.
ansari p.k.
a learned single judge of the high companyrt allowed the writ petition by his judgment and order dated april 15 1971 but on appeal by the union of india a division bench of the high companyrt reversed the judgment and order of the learned single judge and dismissed the writ petition on february 22 1972.
the appellant the union carbide india limited is a public limited companypany and carries on the business of the manufacture and sale of flashlights torches dry cell batteries chemicals and plastics.
thyagarajan a. kumar and r.n.
