Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- These two appeals involve the question as to whether Properzi Rods manufactured and cleared by the appellant, the Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., fall within Entry No. 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. The Government of India contends for the application of that Entry while, according. to the appellant, Properzi Rods fall under the residuary Entry 68. Civil Appeal No. 2729 of 1982 arises out of a judgment dated May 7, 1982 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 934 of 1972. Civil Appeal No. 2730 of 1982 is directed against Order No. 162 of 1982 passed by the Government of India in a revision application against the order dated Sept. 7, 1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Order No. 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.

2. The appellant Company carries on the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium conductors used for the purpose of transmission of high voltage electric current. One of its factories is situated at Faridabad, in the State of Haryana. The affidavits filed by the appellant show that there are three different, manufacturing techniques by which rods are obtained : by extrusion, by conventional rolling and by the Properzi method. In the extrusion process, rods are manufactured by forcing the metal through a sized die. In the conventional rolling process, billets of definite weight are first cast. Thereafter, they are pre-heated well above the recrystallization temperature in a loop mill, where the rods are coiled in between two passes to compensate exothermic heat produced by rolling. In the Properzi method, aluminium ingots are charged in melting furnace, each charge consisting of 2500 pounds which takes about 30 minutes for melting. After the ingots arc subjected to the melting process, the aluminium is transferred to the holding furnaces, from where it is taken to the holding pot. The metal which is poured is cooled by water sprays, as a result of which it is solidified and emerges in the form of a continuous bar. The bar is rolled and comes out in the form of a hot rolled rod of 9.5 mm. diameter in continuous length. This rod is known as Properzi Rod.

3. The First Schedule to the Act of 1944 contains 68 entries, the last of which, Entry No. 68 is, broadly, in the nature of a residuary entry. It will be necessary to go to that entry only if the Properzi Rods with which we are concerned in these appeals, do not fall under Entry No. 27(a)(H), as is contended on behalf of the Government. That entry reads as follows :

"Aluminium

(a)(ii) wire bars, wire rods and castings, not otherwise specified."

4. By an Order dated Sept. 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 No. 27(a)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff on the basis that Properzi Rods are aluminium wire rods. Aggrieved by that ,order, the appellant filed an appeal under S. 35 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, on Feb. 7, 1972. The appellant filed a revision against that order under S. 36 of the Act to the Central Government. Simultaneously, the appellant also filed Civil Writ No. 310 of 1972 in the High Court of Delhi, challenging the order of the Deputy Collector. The High Court directed, the Government to dispose of the revision application within one month and kept the writ petition pending for admission. The order of the Deputy Collector was set aside by the Government in revision and the matte: was remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. In view of the order of remand, the appellant withdrew the writ petition on May 18, 1972. After the reman