The processes of straightening, cutting, bending, punching, and galvanizing steel angles, plates, channels, and bars as per the specification of the supplier do not amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944.

1. - Petitioner Man Structurals Ltd. which is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 has filed this writ petition with the averments that it is engaged in performing certain processes on materials viz, iron angles plates channels rounds etc. received from various Electricity Boards including U.P. State Electricity Board. The angles plates etc. are cut to requisite size and holes punched therein. After certain other mechanical processes as per the specifications they are polished and then supplied back to the concerned Electricity Board. According to the petitioner all these processes undertaken by it do not amount to 'manufacturing process' within the meaning of Central Excise and Salts Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1944') and therefore the Act of 1944 is not applicable and no excise duty is attracted. Initially the Excise Department did not accept the petitioner's contention but the tariff was amended and Item No. 68 was introduced from 1.3.1975 and the Department insisted for payment of excise duty by the petitioner which the petitioner paid under protest. This process continued till June 1980. A classification list was submitted by the petitioner under protest. The petitioner vide letter dated 23rd June, 1980 further stated that their activity is not manufacture and that they will pay duty under protest. The said classification list was effective from 19.6.1980. The petitioner by its letter dated 4.2.1984 addressed to the Supdt. Central Excise mentioned that it had been informed by the Inspector that the classification list was pending finalisation and therefore the petitioner submitted that its product was not excisable because the process was not a manufacturing process but the petitioner did not hear anything. The petitioner after coming to know of the judgment dated 26.6.1986 passed by C.E.G.A.T. in the case of M/s. R.S. Steel Works Ghaziabad who are also doing similar work as is being done by the petitioner filed an application on 10.2.1987 for refund of duty recovered by the respondents from the petitioner during 1.3.1975 to 31.12.1986. The Assistant Collector by its order dated 23rd June 1987 held that the petitioner's products are clearly non-excisable as the activities undertaken by the petitioner were the same as those of R.S. Steel Works Ghaziabad and relying on the order of the C.E.G.A.T. dated 26.6.1986 and also its subsequent decision in M/s. Dodsal Private Limited held that the same did not constitute 'manufacturing' within the meaning of Act of 1944 and therefore no excise duty was leviable in respect of the same. Hence he allowed the petitioner's claim for refund of the duty paid during the period 23.6.1980 to 31.5.81 and 11.9.1986 to 31.12.1986 but rejected the petitioner's claim for refund of the amount paid during 1.3.1975 to 22.6.1980 and 1.6.1981 to 10.9.1986 on the ground that refund claimed for that period was beyond limitation and the petitioner had allegedly not complied with the relevant procedural requirements for the payment of duty under protest. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Asstt. Collector before the Collector (Appeals) so far as refund claim of the petitioner was rejected. The Collector (Appeals) decided the appeal by his order dated 30.9.1987 and further directed that the petitioner will be entitled to refund for the period 1.3.1975 to 22.6.1980 however disallowing the claim of the petitioner for the period 1.6.1981 to 10.9.86 holding that the amount for that period was not paid in accordance with Rule 233-B of the Central Excise and Salt Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The petitioner did not pay any excise duty after 23.6.1987 and also surrendered Central Excise licence on 24.6.1987 and also filed the classification list effective from 1.3.1987 which was duly approved by the Assistant Collector on 14.7.1987. It has further been asserted in the writ petition that the judgment of the C.E.G