BHARAT FORGE & PRESS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA, GUJARAT

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 16-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHARAT FORGE & PRESS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRALEXCISE, BARODA, GUJARAT 
J.._ 
B 
JANUARY 16, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN, N.D. OJHA AND 
J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 
1944: First Schedule Item 
-~ 
26AA(iv )-'Pipe fittings'-Levy of excise duty-Whether could be clas-
c 
D 
E 
sified as 'pipes and tubes'-Whether a different commercial commodity. 
Steel pipes and tubes (including blanks therefor) all sorts, 
whether rolled, forged, spun, cast, drawn, annealed, welded or 
extruded were dutiable under Item 26AA(iv) of the First Schedule to 
the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Department, however, 
sought to classify 'pipe fittings' such as elbows, bends and reducers, 
manufactured by the appellants, from out of the steel pipes purchased 
from the open market on payment of excise duty, under Item 68 which 
was a residuary entry, on the ground that they were known in the 
market differently as pipe fittin1~s, a totally different commercial com-
modity. The appellants' claim that the process undertaken by them .did 
not amount to manufacture as the products turned out were nothing but 
pipes and tubes, and that they were being virtually asked to pay duty 
twice over on the same prodluct, was rejected by the Appellate 
Tribunal. 
Allowing the appeal under s. 35L(B) of the Act, the Court, 
F 
HELD: J. Unless the Department could establish that the goods 
in question could by no conceivable process of reasoning be brought 
under any of the tariff items, rE,sort could not be had to the residuary 
item. This has not been done in the instant case. [62F] 
2.1 The use of the words 'all sorts of' and the reference to the 
G 
various processes by which the e>:cisable items could be manufactured set 
out in Entry 26AA(iv) are comprehensive enough to encompass all sorts 
of pipes and tubes. [64F] 
2.2 The expression "pipe fittings" merely denotes that it is a pipe 
or tube of a particular length, sj«e or shape. Pipe fittings do not cease to 
H 
be pipes and tubes; they are only a species thereof. In order to achieve 
60 
• 
:'\-
! 
"· 
BHARAT FORGE INDUSTRIES v. C.C.E. [RANGANATHAN, J.] 
61 
fully the purpose for which the pipes and tubes are manufactured, it is 
necessary to manufacture smaller pieces of pipes and tubes and also to 
manufacture them in such a shape that they may be able to conduct 
liquids and gases, passing them through and across angles, turnings, 
corners and curves or regulating their flow in the manner required. 
This is done by a process of forging, welding, hammering and so on 
applied to the longer tubes. There is no change in their basic physical 
properties and there is no change in their end use. They are merely 
intended as accessories or supplements to the larger pipes and tubes. It 
could not, therefore, be said that pipe fittings, though they may have a 
distinctive name or badge of identification in the market, were not pipes 
and tubes. [63B-C, 62G-63A, 64E] 
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 3 
S.C.C. 284, referred to. 
A 
B 
3. No doubt "tubes and pipes" and "pipe fittiugs'.' fall under 
different sub-items under the Harmonised Code as well as nuder the 
Customs Cooperative Council Nomenclature where two expressions are 
D 
used in contrast and the sub-classification is more detailed. That 
dichotomy could not be imported into the instant case where there was 
only one comprehensive and generic entry. [65B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1057 
of 1987. 
E 
From the Order dated 29.12.1986 of the Customs Excise and 
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. ED/SB/ 
7 A No. 186/82-BI in Order No. 826/86-BI. 
D.N. Mehta, R.C. Misra and Dr. Meera Agarwal for the 
F 
Appellants. 
V.C. Mahajan and R.P. Srivastava for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATHAN, J. Item 26AA(iYJ of the Central Excise 
Tariff reads as follows: 
"Pipes and tubes (including blanks therefor) all sorts, 
whether rolled, forged, spun, cast, drawn, annealed, 
G 
welded or extruded" 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990) 1 S.C.R. 
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pipe fittings 
such as elbows, bends and reducers. They purchase steel pipes on 
payment of excise duty prom indigenous producers from the open 
market and they also get steel tubes by way of import. The appellants 
cut the pipes and tubes into different sizes, give them shape and turn 
them into pipe 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.