TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (11) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 26AA(ii). 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Company who is manufacturer of metallic flexible tubes. The petitioner-Company held a licence in Form L-4 to manufacture the said tubes and has been carrying on the activity of manufacturing metallic flexible tubes and hoses for the last couple of years and has been paying duty regularly on the same. The petitioner requires cold rolled strips of various breadths as raw material, for the manufacture of metallic flexible tubes and hoses and, therefore, they obtain the same either from the open market or directly from the manufacturers of such cold rolled strips. Accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany is marked Annexure 'D' to the petition. According to the Petitioner, thereafter the third respondent visited the factory of the petitioner and opined vide letter dated 18-07-1977 that the petitioner-Company manufactured galvanised strips and that the product was classifiable under Tariff Item 26AA and that, therefore, the petitioner-Company should take out a licence. According to the petitioner, the Company in pursuance of the directions issued by the third respondent applied for and obtained a licence in Form L-4 under protest and reserved their right to appeal. The Company thereafter preferred an appeal to the fourth respondent on 16-09-1977, but the same was dismissed on 26-11-1977 on the ground that no order was passed by the thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acture under Sec. 2(f) of the Act and that this process of galvanisation of steel strips cannot be construed to be manufacturing of galvanised strips. However, the fourth respondent upheld the order passed by the third respondent and rejected the appeal of the petitioner by his order dated 29-12-1980. The order passed in appeal is annexed at Annexure 'H' to the petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders Annex. 'G' and 'H' passed by the third and fourth respondents, the petitioner-Company has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the same. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gupta submitted that the galvanisation of steel strips is not a process of manufacture as envisaged by Sec. 2(f) of the Act and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs into existence a new product requiring to be manufactured under a licence, may be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. J.D. Ajmera, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that galvanisation will be a manufacturing process and that by such process, new article is brought into existence by the petitioner-Company and, therefore, it will be "manufacture" within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Act. 6. Entry 26AA of the First S.C.hedule to the Act as it existed at the relevant time reads as follows: "26AA. Iron or Steel Products, the following namely: (i) Semi-finished steel including blooms, billets, slabs, sheet bar and hoe bars. Three hundied and fifty rupees per metric tonne. (i-a) Bars, rods, coils, wires, joists girders,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....termed as 'manufacture' and whether it brings new commodity into existence. Therein, the petitioner Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. contended that the galvanised iron pipes manufactured by it are "declared goods" and are not liable to additional sales-tax as well as surcharge. The Supreme Court, in para 5 of the decision has observed as under: "The purpose of galvanising a pipe is merely to make it weather-proof. It remains a steel tube. By being put through the process of galvanising, it is made rust-proof. Neither its structure nor function is altered. As a commercial item it is not different from a steel tube. The galvanisation is done on steel tubes or pipes as a protective measure only. Merely because of the steel tube has been galvanised ....