Mohan, J.,

In W.P. No. 7254 of 1975.

2.In the said writ petition the appellants who are the manufacturers of Furacin Syrup, a resin solution which, according to the respondents, is liable to duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944

3.The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the question as to whether the end product is excisable at all was in fact canvassed before the learned single Judge. Even otherwise that being a question of law directly arising on the facts put forward in this case, we are of the view that the question as to the applicability of rule 10 will arise only if the article produced by the appellants is excisable, we proceed to deal with the said question even though that question has not been dealt with by the learned single Judge.

4.So far as the applicability of rule 10 to the facts of this case is concerned, though the learned counsel for the appellant questions the correctness of the view taken by the learned single Judge, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge cannot be taken exception to. Admittedly, for the period 1-4-1971 to 13-5-1972, the excise duty was levied and collected from