JUDGMENT

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.:— This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated November, 5. 1970 on the strength of a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.

2. The appellant is a firm carrying on business of re-rolling having its factory at Moosapet near Sanatnagar, Hyderabad. A contract was entered into between the appellant and the 5th respondent, whereby the appellant undertook to convert 3000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails into M. S. Rounds of different specifications by the process of re-rolling. Accordingly, the quantity of 3000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails was supplied to the appellant by the 5th respondent during the period between 29-4-1964 to 23-2-1966 and the appellant duly executed the work and delivered the M. S. Rounds and received the re-rolling charges in accordance with the terms of the agreement, The last delivery of the finished products was effected by the appellant on 23-2-1966.

3. Nearly eight months thereafter, on October 17, 1966 the Inspector of Central Excise, Ameerpet issued notices to the appellant dated October 17, 1966 demanding payment of excise duty on the rounds rerolled by the petitioner from untested rails. The demand notices were purported to have been issued under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant filed a written representation to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad, contending that the demand for payment of excise duty on the M. S. Rounds was illegal since they had been re-rolled from rails which were exempt from levy of excise duty.

4. The Assistant Collector by his order dated January 17, 1967 rejected the said contention. However, while doing so, he gave a direction to the Inspector of Central Excise to revise the demands in accordance with the rates of duty which were current during the different periods. Pursuant thereto, three revised demand notices dated March 18, 1967 were issued to the appellant. The appellant thereupon preferred an appeal to the Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad. But that appeal was rejected by the Collector and the demands were confirmed. A Revision Petition filed by the appellant to the Central Government also met with the same fate. Thereafter the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking an appropriate writ quashing the notices of demand on the ground that the M. S. Rounds in question were not liable to be assessed to duty under Item No. 26-AA of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) and that in any event the impugned demands were time barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the resort sought to be made to the provisions contained in Rule 10-A was, not legal or warranted. Neither of the aforesaid contentions found favour with the High Court and accordingly the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal by the appellant.

5. The description of goods given in Column No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Act against Item No. 26-AA(i) as it stood at the relevant time was in the following terms : -

"Semi finished steel including blooms billets, slabs, sheet bars, rods, coils, wires: joists, girders, angles, channels, tees, beams, zeds, trough, piling and all other rolled, forged or extruded shapes and sections; not otherwise specified."

In execution of the contract entered into between the appellant and the 5th respondent, the appellant had converted 3000 metric tonnes of untested rails into M. S. Rounds of different specifications by the process of rerolling. This undoubtedly amounted to manufacture. Since Item No. 26-AA(i) expressly takes within its scope "all other, rolled, forged or extruded shapes and sections, not otherwise specified", the M.S. Rounds manufactured by the appellant by the process of re-rolling were clearly liable to excise duty under the said item.

6. We find no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the ap