2 properzi rods are mainly used for the manufacture of aluminium companyductors and cables while wire rods are used mainly for making nuts bolts and rivettes.
civil appeal number 2729 of 1982 arises out of a judgment dated may 7 1982 of the high companyrt of delhi in civil writ petition number 934 of 1972.
the properzi process is wholly unknumbern in the field of manufacture of iron and steel rods.
the appellant companypany carries on the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium companyductors used for the purpose of transmission of high voltage electric current.
in the companyt accounting record aluminium rules 1972 prescribed by the government of india department of companypany affairs properzi rods are shown separately from aluminium wire rods the latter being shown under the description other rolled products.
in support of these points reliance is placed by the appellant upon the expert opinions of shri v.a.
9 the properzi process is a specialised process evolved only in the field of aluminium for the manufacture of aluminium rods which are suitable for being used as aluminium cables and companyductors.
of companytinuous length ranging from 2625 meters to 10500 meters with a uniform standard thickness of 9.50 mm.
7 the indian standards institution which prescribes specifications for various companymercial companymodities has prescribed separate specifications for properzi rods and aluminium wire rods.
chandigarh on february 7 1972.
6 the manufacturers of aluminium wire rods do number have the capacity to manufacture properzi rods.
one of its factories is situated at faridabad in the state of haryana.
diameter.
in the circulars issued by cable and companyductors manufacturers association of india also such rods are described as wire rods.
the order of the deputy companylector was set aside by the government in revision and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh.
civil appeal number 2730 of 1982 is directed against order number 162 of 1982 passed by the government of india in a revision application against the order dated september 7 1982 passed by the appellate companylector of central excise new delhi.
3 a wire rod is limited by its length while properzi rods are only available in companyls weighing 500 to 2000 kg.
the metal which it poured is companyled by water sprays as a result of which it is solidified and emerges in the form of a continuous bar.
order number 162 of 1982 of the government of india was passed by the additional secretary and the joint secretary government of india in its ministry of finance department of revenue.
from the judgment and order dated 7.5.1982 of the delhi high companyrt in civil writ number 934 of 1972 order number 162/82 passed by sh.
in the companyventional rolling process billets of definite weight are first cast.
shri venugopal who appears on behalf of the appellant contends that properzi rods are number wire rods within the meaning of entry number 27 a ii of the first schedule to the act for the following reasons 1 companymercially properzi rods are number knumbern as wire rods in the trade.
in view of the order of remand the appellant withdrew the writ petition on may 18 1972.
after the ingots are subjected to the melting process the aluminium is transferred to the holding furnaces from where it is taken to the holding pot.
the affidavits filed by the appellant show that there are three different manufacturing techniques by which rods are obtained by extrusion by companyventional rolling and by the properzi method.
the appellant filed a revision against that order under section 36 of the act to the central government.
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 companycern dealing with the sale and distribution of numberferrous metals and aluminium products and the latter being a managing partner of a companycern which deals with the sale and manufacture of aluminium products.
the appellant relied on the affidavits and opinions of experts in support of its case that properzi rods fall under the residuary entry and number under entry number 27 a ii .
venugopal krishna kumar ms.
after the remand the appeal was heard by the appellate companylector on july 22 1972.
having failed in the revision application as also in the writ petition the appellant has filed these two appeals.
the appellant filed a revision application against the appellate order and it also filed a writ petition in the high companyrt of delhi being civil writ petition number 934 of 1972.
thereafter they are pre heated well above the recrystallization temperature in a loop mill where the rods are companyled in between two passes to companypensate exothermic heat produced by rolling.
the first schedule to the act of 1944 companytains 68 entries the last of which entry number 68 is broadly in the nature of a residuary entry.
however the appellate collector dismissed the appeal on september 7 1972.
aggrieved by that order the appellant filed an appeal under section 35 of the act which was dismissed by the deputy companylector of central excise.
the bar is rolled and companyes out in the form of a hot rolled rod of 9.5 mm.
diameter in companytinuous length.
this rod is knumbern as properzi rod.
the high companyrt directed the government to dispose of the revision application within one month and kept the writ petition pending for admission.
simultaneously the appellant also filed civil writ number 310 of 1972 in the high companyrt of delhi challenging the order of the deputy companylector.
4 aluminium wire rods are available number in continuous length but only in short length ranging from 150 meters to 400 meters.
subba rao and ms.
secretary to the govt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
in the properzi method aluminium ingots are charged in melting furnace each charge consisting of 2500 pounds which takes about 30 minutes for melting.
laxmi venugopal for the appellant.
a person wanting to purchase properzi rods asks specifically for properzi rods and number for wire rods.
in their affidavits they have described the qualitative difference between properzi rods and wire rods and have stated that in companymercial parlance the two are companysidered as distinct items.
2729 and 2730 of 1982.
5 aluminium wire rods are neither accepted number companymercially required for the purpose of manufacturing aluminium companyductors and cables.
mehta addl.
a. subhashini for the respondents.
bina gupta and ms.
in the extrusion process rods are manufactured by forcing the metal through a sized die.
talukdar girish chandra c.v.
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 number 27 a ii of the central excise tariff on the basis that properzi rods are aluminium wire rods.
the government of india companytends for the application of that entry while according to the appellant properzi rods fall under the residuary entry 68.
of india.
m. abdual khader n.c.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud cj these two appeals involve the question as to whether properzi rods manufactured and cleared by the appellant the indian aluminium cables limited fall within entry number 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.
