INDIAN ALUMINIUM CABLES LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 731 · Decided: 27-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

INDIAN ALUMINIUM CABLES LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
May 27, 1985 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJ., SABYASACHl MUKHARJI AND 
R.S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Central Excise and Saft Act. 1944 : 
731 
First Schedule Entry 27 (a) (ii) and E,ztry No. 68. 
'Proprrzi Rods' -
Classification of-Explained. 
Interpretation of Statutes; 
Central Excise Tariff-Fiscal Schedule-Classification of product-Process 
of rr:anufactw e and end use of product-Not necessarily determinative of 
classijiration. 
Words & Phrases : 
'Pr.Jperzl R.)Js'-,\.feanin<s of-Central Excise & 8alt Act 1944, First 
Schedule Entry 27 (a) (ii). 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The appellant-Company carries on the business of manufacture and sale 
F 
of aluminium conductors used for the purpose of transmission of high voltage 
electric current. There were three different manufacturing techniques by which 
rods were obtained : by extrusion, by conveational rolling and by the Properzi 
method. The rods prepared by the last 
m~thod was known as Properzi 
Rod. 
G 
The Superintendent of Central Excise called upon the appellant-Company 
to clear the Properzi Rods manufactured by it after payment of duty under 
Entry No. 27 (a) (ii) of the Central Excise Tariff on the basis that Prnperzi 
Rods were aluminium wire rods. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed 
an appeal under s. 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, !944 which was 
dismissed by the Deputy Collector. The appellant thereafter filed a revision 
H 
against that order under s. 36 to the Central Government, and the order of the 
Deputy Collector was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate 
Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. In view of the order of remand the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985) SUPPL. S.C.R, 
appellant withdrew the writ petition which it had simultaneously filed, challeng· 
ing the order of the Deputy Collector. After th~ remand the appeal was heard 
by the Appellate Collector, and the appellant relied on the affidavits and 
opinions of experts in support of its case that Properzi Rods fall under the 
residuary entry and not under Entry No. 27 (a) (ii). The Appellate Collector 
however dismissed the appeal. The revision application and the writ petition 
to the High Court against the aforesaid order were also dismissed. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant, 
that Properzi Rods are not wire within the meaning of Entry No. 27 (a) (ii) of 
the First Schedule to the Act for tho following reasons : (I) Commercially, 
Properzi Rods are not known as wire rods in the trade 
A person wanting to 
purchase Properzi Rods asks specifically for Properzi Rods and not for wire 
rods. (2J Properzi Rods are mainly used for the manufacture of aluminium 
conductors and cables, while wire rods are used mainly for making nuts, bolts 
and rivettes. (3) A wire rod is limited by its length, while Properzi Rods 
ar1 
only available in coils. 
(4) Aluminium wire rods are 
available not in 
continuous length but only in short length. (5) Aluminium wire rods are neither 
accepted nor commercially required 
for the purpose of 
manufacturing 
aluminium conductors and cables. (6) The manufacturers of aluminium wire 
rods do not have the capacity to manufacture Properzi Rods. (7) The Indian 
Standards Institution which prescribes specifications for various 
commercial 
commodites has prescribed separate specifications for Properzi Rods and 
aluminium wire rods 
(8) In the Cost Accounting Record (Aluminium) Rules 
1972, Properzi Rods are shown separately from aluminium wire rods the latter 
being shown under the description •other rolled products'. (9) The Properzi 
process is as pecialised process evolved only in the field of aluminium for 
the 
manufacture of aluminium rods which are suitable for being used as aluminium 
cables and conductors. The Properzi proce11s is wholly unknown in the field of 
manufacture of iron and steel rods. 
Dismissing the Appeal, 
HELD : 1. 
From the description of 'Properzi Rod' as contained in the 
various affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant itself, it is clear that Properzi 
Rod is a wire rod. Entry No 27 (a) (ii) comprehends "wire bars, wire rods and 
castings, not otherwise specified", The last clause of this entry, "not otherwise 
specified" must govern not only the expression 'castings' but the expressions 
'wire bars' and 'wire rods' also. Since Properzi Rods, which are a species of 
wire rods, are not otherwise specified, 

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