P.C. Heard Sri Manoj Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttaranchal/respondents, and Sri Arvind Vashishtha, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for Union of India.

2. All these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the demand notices issued to them under the Central Excise Act, for recovery of excise duty on resin.

3. The grounds on which the petitioners have assailed the impugned notices are that the resin is not mentioned in the Notification rather; olio resin is mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the resin is a natural produce and there involve no process for production or extracting the resin. It is not produced by applying the manufacture process. He further submits that resin has been defined under the U.P. Resin And Other Forest Produce (Regulation Of Trade), Act no. 13 of 1976. The word resin has been defined u/s 2(d) of the said Act, which meant that secretion extracted by tapping from Chir or Kail trees.

4. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents is that the resin is an excisable goods specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Under Chapter 13 in the heads of 13.01 (3) resin is mentioned and rate is mentioned under Sub-heading at 13.01 (4) and in sub-heading 1301.90 (4) the rate is shown as 12%, which has been revised lateron, vidfe subsequent Notification.

5. In the Central Excise Traffic Act 1985, the word ‘manufacture’ defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, has been substituted as follows :-

“(f) “manufacture” includes any process :-

(i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product:

(ii) which is specified in relation to any good in the Section or Chapter Notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture,

and the word “manufacture” shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account.”

6. Sub Section 2 of Section 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 provides that any reference to the expression First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in any Central Act shall on and after the commencement of this Act, be construed as a reference to the Schedule to this Act. Meaning thereby, the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 shall be read with the Schedule of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Charing section of the Central Excise Traffic Act, 1944 is Section 3.

7. Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act 1944 provides that a duty of excise, to be called the Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) on all excisable goods [(excluding goods produced or manufactured in special economic zones) which are produced or manufactured in India as] and te rates, set forth in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Hence, the definitions transpire that the excisable goods are those goods, which are manufactured or produced in India as describe in the First Schedule. Meaning thereby the goods mentioned in thre First Schedule are the excisable goods, which have been clarified by the Legislature by defining them. The excisable goods defnied u/s 2 D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which reads as under :

“(d). “excisable goods” means goods specified in (the First Schedule and the Second Schedule) to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt.”

8. The petitioners themselves have stated in the writ petitions that the petitioners are in need of Oleo Pine Resin, which is generally collected by the Forest Department by employing rill method. The definition of the Resin also provides that Resin is a secretiokn extracted by tapping from Chir or Kail trees. Meaning thereby, the process of tapping or process used for collect