Judgment :- RAMAPRASADA RAO, J. The petitioner manufactures articles made out of steel to the specification of the Integral Coach Factory, Madras and the Standard Motor Products of India Limited. The petitioner's case is that it bends steel plates into angular shapes and supplies such tabular steel frames and chair angles to the Railways and the Motor Company. It is left to the Railway and the automobile company to fix them as they desired with additions such as bottom rails, springs, pillows, rexin, etc. and use them according to their needs as furniture in the railway compartments and automotive cars. On April 17, 1968, the petitioner was orally informed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Sembiam, MOR Madras-23, that it was liable to declare its stocks as on February 29, 1968 and take out a licence as manufacturer of excisable goods, namely, steel furniture. The 1st respondent's case is that there was a directive from the Government of India that seats and other steel furnishings do come under Item 40 of the Central Excise Tariff appearing in the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner submitted its objections to the letter dated April 27, 1968 to the above effect and stated that the supplies made by it to the Railways and to the Motor company can never be called furniture and that there is no wholesale or retail market for the articles supplied by it and neither the consumer or the trade circles look upon those articles as furniture. Its further contention is that it is not a manufacturer of furniture and that the articles produced are not in any event excisable goods which production would compel it to take out a licence under the provisions of the Act. The objections were considered by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, and finally by a letter dated May 4, 1968, the petitioner was requested again to declare its stock of the articles manufactured by it and take steps to take out a Central Excise licence and to observe all Central Excise formalities. The objections were considered by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, and finally by a letter dated May 4, 1968, the petitioner was requested again to declare its stock of the articles manufactured by it and take steps to take out a Central Excise licence and to observe all Central Excise formalities. The case of the respondents is that the Finance Ministry have clarified the issue and they construed that moveable articles which have essential characteristics for being placed on the floor or ground and which are used mainly with the utilitarian purpose to equip dwelling, hotels, ships, aircraft, railway coaches, ambulances, caravan trailers or similar means of transports are covered by item 40 of the First Schedule to the Act. It was made clear that the manufacturers of seats to cars and buses are liable to pay duty on the steel furnishings fitted as to buses etc. On receipt of this final intimation, the petitioner has come to this courtinter aliastating that Item 40 of the tariff will only apply to what are known as steel furniture whether in assembled or unassembled condition and that tabular frame supplied by it are not excisable goods within the meaning of the Act. It contends that there was no legal basis for the demand. Such contention were repeated before us and the learned Counsel for the petitioner added that the petitioner is not obliged to take out a licence, under Section 6 of the Act in the absence of a Notification that the articles manufactured by the petitioner are notified components of steel furniture as provided thereunder. 2.The respondents answering to the contentions would state that the articles in question do retain all the characteristics of steel furniture made partly or wholly of steel and that the manufactured product being designed for use as steel seats in automobiles, railway carriages, came within the above description and added that these articles were subject to an executive exemption under Notification No. 91/68, dated April, 30, 1968 made under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. But the respondents' emphatic case is that in any event and notwithstanding the executive exemption the petitioner is obliged to take out a licence under Section 6 read with Section 3 of the Act and the petitioner's case that it is not necessary for it to take out a licence is not well founded. But the respondents' emphatic case is that in any event and notwithstanding the executive exemption the petitioner is obliged to take out a licence under Section 6 read with Section 3 of the Act and the petitioner's case that it is not necessary for it to take out a licence is not well founded. The respondents' factual contention is that as the products manufactured by the petitioner admittedly form the core to which their buyers only add cushioning materials and the like and as the products are otherwise complete, the products not only satisfy the description of steel furniture, but are excisable materials, for the manufacture of which a licence is statutorily necessary. As the petitioner's operations have undoubtedly brought a new substance into existence, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that it could manufacture the articles without the prescribed licence. 3.Two questions arise in this writ petition : firstly, whether the goods are excisable and secondly, whether the petitioner has to take out a licence under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 even if the excise duty payable on the manufactured product is subject to executive exemption. The answer to the second poser concludes the real issue in this Writ Petition; but as the first poser also has been fully argued, we wish to render our answer thereon as well. 4.It is not in dispute that the goods manufactured by the petitioner are tabular steel frames, tabular seat frames and angles for the purpose of being fitted into the seats of railway coaches manufactured by the Integral Coach Factory Madras and seats manufactured by Standard Motor Products India Limited. No doubt, the product is not a commercial product as is popularly understood, because it is invariably fabricated to specification. The finished article suits only the Railway and the Motor company. But it cannot be said that by reason of its limited demand and identified buyer, it is not an excisable commodity, if it falls under one or other of the enumerated items in the Schedule to the Act which are liable to pay excise duty. Therefore, it is to be considered whether the frames and angles do fall within the enumerated items. Therefore, it is to be considered whether the frames and angles do fall within the enumerated items. It is claimed by the respondents that the manufactured product is liable to excise duty but for the executive exemption, as it fits into 40 of the First Schedule to the Act which runs as follows and which was introduced by Act 19 of 1968 : "40. Steel furniture made partly or wholly of steel, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, whether in assembled or unassembled condition. Twenty per centadvalorem." 5.In any event it is said that the petitioner is bound to take out a licence to manufacture the articles. 6.Learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly says that if the product satisfied the plain meaning of the expression "Steel furniture" then only the duty is attracted. But as the product is not steel furniture, no question of excise duty under Item 40 would arise. The petitioner's further case is that it need not take out a licence under the provisions of the statute as they stand. 7.We shall now notice the relevant statutory provision on the first issue. Section 2(d) defines what are "excisable goods" as goods specified in the First Schedule as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt. Section 2(k) defines a "wholesale dealer" as a person who buys or sells excisable goods wholesale for the purpose of trade or manufacture, and includes a broker or commission who, in addition to making contracts for the sale or purchase of excisable goods for others, stocks such goods belonging to other as an agent, for the purpose of sale. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a wholesaler in the sense it is a seller of specified goods for purposes of trade and commerce. But, are the frames and angles excisable goods? The Revenue claims that they satisfy the description in Item 40. The specific case is that the goods are steel furniture. To be understood as goods, it is necessary that they must popularly be referred to as commercial goods, sold and dealt with in the market. But the frames, etc. manufactured by the petitioner are merely the base which has to be worked upon to finish it and make it marketable goods. To be understood as goods, it is necessary that they must popularly be referred to as commercial goods, sold and dealt with in the market. But the frames, etc. manufactured by the petitioner are merely the base which has to be worked upon to finish it and make it marketable goods. As the Supreme Court said inUnion of Indiav.Delhi Cloth and General Mills. 8.Moreover, the definitions of 'goods' make it clear that to become 'goods' an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold. The 'manufacture' which is liable to excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 must therefore be the "bringing into existence of a new substance known to the market". 9.Then, is an angular frame or tabular frame fit for being used as the foundation for a railway carriage seat or motor car seat, by itself furniture? No doubt, a seat, whether in a railway carriage or automobile can be loosely called furniture. But, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the frame is a part of furniture and it being in an unassembled condition, the goods satisfy the description in Item 40. For goods to be excisable, it should fit into every part of the explanatory description of the item in the Schedule. The words "steel furniture" in an unassembled condition mean that the goods themselves and in their existing condition, when assembled would become steel furniture. Assemblage of tabular angles and frames in any permutation or combination cannot make them furniture. Item 40 does not include part of furniture. The word 'furniture' has a special meaning in commerce. If railway seats are contracted for and in performance thereof, tabular frames of steel are supplied, it would not amount to performance and consequential discharge of the contract. The dictionary meaning of 'furniture' is articles of convenience or decoration used to furnish a premises, may it be residential or non-residential. It cannot be said that the articles such as frames, though made of steel and though a component of furniture, is steel furniture by itself. It is a specifically fabricated article on the basis of a particular specification and it has no meaning as furniture in the common market. The goods in question do not fall under Item 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, as amended in 1968. It is a specifically fabricated article on the basis of a particular specification and it has no meaning as furniture in the common market. The goods in question do not fall under Item 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, as amended in 1968. Though the argument was purely academic, because of the exemption from excise duty consequent upon the Notification No. 91/68, dated April 30, 1968, yet we expressed our view in view of the arguments addressed. 10.The second poser is whether the petitioner is bound to take out an appropriate licence in respect of the operations carried on by it, notwithstanding its entitlement to an exemption under executive fiat. Section 3(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 is the charging section and it reads thus : "There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in India, and a duty on salt manufactured in, or imported by land into, any part of India as and at the rates set forth in the First Schedule." 11.Section 6 postulates that certain operations in connection with the manufacture or production of excisable goods are subject to the grant of an appropriate licence for the purpose. It reads : "The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, provide that, from such date as may be specified in the notification, no person shall except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under this Act, engage in - (a)the production or manufacture or any process of the production of manufacture of any specified goods included in the First Schedule or of saltpetre or of any specified component parts or ingredients of such goods of specified containers of such goods, or (b)the wholesale purchase or sale (whether or his own account or as a broker or commission agent) or the storage of any specified goods included in the First Schedule." 12.The condition precedent for the infliction of the licence under Section 6 on the producer or manufacturer is that a notification in the Official Gazette, issued by the Central Government should specify as to what sort of operation or engagement is licenceable. No doubt, the manufacture or production of a component part of the goods specified in the First Schedule is licenceable. A tubular frame of steel is certainly a component part of steel furniture.Prima facie, the goods manufactured by the petitioner do come within the pale of a licenceable operation. But even in such circumstances, the obligation to take out a licence arises only if the operation or engagement of the manufacturer is notified in the prescribed manner to be a licenceable operation. It is conceded that there is no notification by the Central Government in the Official Gazette that no person shall engage himself without a licence in the manufacture and processing of the articles forged by the petitioner. A licence to manufacture a product imposes certain conditions and terms. They are likely to be onerous. But if a manufacturer is called upon to undertake such onerous and inconvenient responsibilities, there should be an express statutory provision compelling him to take out the licence. Here there is no notification as yet which ordains such a mandate. In the absence of any guidelines or prescription as envisaged under Section 6 the respondents did not have the requisite authority to issue the impugned order on May 4, 1968. To wit, the respondents, as the law stood, had no jurisdiction to ask the petitioner to take immediate steps to take out a Central Excise licence and observe all Central Excise formalities.The petitioner succeeds on both the points. The rulenisiis made absolute. The Writ Petition is allowed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150.