Judgment :- VEERASWAMI, C.J This petition raises an interesting question as to the scope of Entry 23 B in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner, the English Electric Co. of India Ltd., engages itself in manufacturing equipment useful in the distribution of electricity at its works at Pallavaram near Madras. One of the items of manufacture is High Rupturing Capacity Cartridge Fuselinks. The question is whether this will attract excise duty under the Entry. For the year 1968, the Revenue, after consulting the Chemical Examiner, concluded that the particular H.R.C., Fuselinks would not fall within the scope of Entry 23B. But, on 7-11-1973, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Guiday Mixed Range, notified the petitioner that in view of the revised opinion expressed by the Chemical Examiner, they will be liable to duty. A part of the Chemical Examiner's report was cited in that communication. lt said that the sample was in the form of white hollow cylindrical piece having rough surface, that when written on by ink, the ink markings could not be easily rubbed off showing the sample was not glazed, that on breaking the sample the broken surface was found to be rough and no pores were visible to the eye, that, water absorption was found to be 0-37% and that it was composed of compounds of aluminium, calcium, magnesium, iron and silicon. The report, therefore, concluded by saying that the article could be considered as procelainware. This conclusion is resisted by the petitioner. 2.For the Revenue, our attention was invited toGirdharilalv.Union of India, in support of the contention that, since this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Excise authorities, the correctness of the conclusion reached by such authorities on the appreciation of the item in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 3.The petitioner contends that the article before us is not porcelain, which according to him, normally contains 50% Chinaclay, 25% Feldspar. Because the article was in question does not conform to that composition, but contains 28% of Steatite and 20% of Zircon Silicate and also absorption capacity of 0-37%, it need not necessarily be regarded as porcelain. The Entry reads: "23-B. Chinaware and Porcelainware- All sorts. Because the article was in question does not conform to that composition, but contains 28% of Steatite and 20% of Zircon Silicate and also absorption capacity of 0-37%, it need not necessarily be regarded as porcelain. The Entry reads: "23-B. Chinaware and Porcelainware- All sorts. - (1) Tableware, (2) Sanitaryware, (3) Glazed tiles, (4) Not otherwise specified." * The Explanation to the Entry says that Chinaware includes all glazed clayware but does not include terracotta. But we are not concerned with this in this case. "Porcelain" is defined in several publications. Indian Standard Glossary of Terms relating to Ceramicware defines procelain as a glazed or unglazed ceramic white ware having not more than 0-3% water absorption. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning of the word porcelain as a fine kind of earthenware, having a translucent body and a transparent glaze, or anything made of this. The publications are all agreed that porcelain normally contains Chinaclay, Qauartz and Feldspar. But they show that the proportion which the petitioner mentioned is not always a crucial test; nor even the thermal expansion capacity or the capacity of absorption, which according to the books seems to vary be between 0-5% and 0-3%. Merely because Zircon silicate to the extent of 20% and Steatite to the extent of 28% form component of what is normally called procelain. The produce does not cease to be porcelain. For instance, Ceramic in the modern world by Maurice Chandler states that in steatite ceramics, a high proportion of steatite a natural crystalling form of magnesium silicate, or talc is mixed with far smaller proportions of clay and some flux or fluxes other than the usual ceramic flux, feldspar. It is also pointed out that feldspar is excluded, because it contains the oxides of sodium and potassium, the alkalis that are responsible for the rather high dielectric loss of ordinary porcelain. The flux that normally replaces it is barium carbonate though magnesium carbonate is sometime used instead. We also find it stated in the book that another of the two important low-loss ceramics, developed since World War II, is zirocon porcelain, a kind of porcelain in which quartz is replaced by zirconium silicate and feldspar by alkali-fee fluxes. The flux that normally replaces it is barium carbonate though magnesium carbonate is sometime used instead. We also find it stated in the book that another of the two important low-loss ceramics, developed since World War II, is zirocon porcelain, a kind of porcelain in which quartz is replaced by zirconium silicate and feldspar by alkali-fee fluxes. In the introduction to technical ceramics, Waye points out that Talc, another source of MgO, and commonly used in other branches of the industry, is an important constituent of cordierite and steatite ceramics. Steatite is properly the massive form of talc but the term has come to be used also for ceramics and mainly from talc. Talc was formed by the hydration of magnesium bearing rocks under pressure, and occurs in various parts of the world; the main sources for use in England are Egypt and India. Reference is also made in this book to Zirconium compounds, which occur in alluvial sands in Ceylone, Madagascar and Australia. This form of porcelain is used in electro-ceramics and it is the major constituent of zirocon porcelain. Under the topic Ceramic Compositions it appears, as seen from this book there are two types of steatite ceramics, normal and losses the former, is fluxes with feldspar and the latter with alkaline earths, which give higher to values. Small amounts of other materials may be added, e g. MgCOS, and also ZrO2 and alkaline earth Ziromum silicates, which are claimed to improve thermal shock resistance although this is not often required. The clay assists in plastic shapping and also in fluxing. The content may be increased and decreased are according to whether plastic shaping or dry pressing is to be used. So far as translucency as a property of porcelain is concerned; it does not seem that it is an essential requisite of an article to be procelain. We have examined some of the other definitions of the term. In 1970 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, porcelain is said to be a glazed or unglazed vitreous ceramic whiteware used for technical purposes. lt is also said that the term designates such products as electrical, chemical, mechanical, structural and thermal wares when the are vitreous. Waye in his introduction to Technical Ceramics points out that the properties required from those for domestic ware-translucency and whiteness are less important, mechanical and electrical properties are more important. lt is also said that the term designates such products as electrical, chemical, mechanical, structural and thermal wares when the are vitreous. Waye in his introduction to Technical Ceramics points out that the properties required from those for domestic ware-translucency and whiteness are less important, mechanical and electrical properties are more important. In 1970 Annual Book of ASTM Standards we find that the extent of absorption may also vary and need not necessarily be fixed, but within certain maximums. The term vitreous generally signifies less than 0-5 per cent. absorption except for floor and wall tile and low-voltage electrical porcelain which are considered vitreous up to 3-0 per cent. water absorption. Vitrification itself signified progressive reduction in prosotity of a ceramic composition as a result of heat treatment, or the process involved. So then, the net result of these publications is that while porcelain may have as its components kaolin-chinaclay, feldspar, which contains silicon and calcium and quartz, which is mainly silicon, the variation in the proportions of each of these main elements, subject to limitations will not alter the character of the product as porcelain. The proportion may vary depending on the different objectives for which the product may be used. We are, therefore, inclined to think that the variations in the proportion or the quality of porcelain in the matter of thermal expansion and pressure of translucency or composition will not alter the character of the article as porcelain. But this result will not conclude against the petitioner. 4.The further contention is that since, Entry 23-B speaks of chinaware and porcelainware, all sorts, the article in question cannot be regarded as a porcelainware. 'Ware' according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, means articles of merchandise of manufacture; the things which a merchant, tradesman, or pedlar has to sell; goods, commodities. Mr. Utham Reddi for the petitioner draws our attention toUnion of Indiav.Delhi Cloth and General Mills, and contends that porcelain which is a component only of H.R.C. fuselinks cannot be regarded as goods within the meaning of excisable goods under the Act. Mr. Utham Reddi for the petitioner draws our attention toUnion of Indiav.Delhi Cloth and General Mills, and contends that porcelain which is a component only of H.R.C. fuselinks cannot be regarded as goods within the meaning of excisable goods under the Act. Section 3 is the charging section, which says that 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, at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule. Excisable goods, as defined in Section 2(d) means goods specified in the First Schedule as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt. InUnion of Indiav.Delhi Cloth and General Mills, it was held that goods for purposes of Central Excises and Salt Act, having regard to the definition of excisable goods and the charging section, would refer to an article which could ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold. The petitioner says that the porcelain component of the H.R.C. fuselinks is not by itself marketable, as it is designed only to serve as a component of such fuselinks. But in the same decision, the Supreme Court pointed out that the fact that the substance produced by the manufacturer at an intermediate stage was not put in the market would not make any difference to the chargeability of the substance to excise duty if it is covered by an item in Schedule I of the Act. The question, therefore, would be whether H.R.C. fuselinks would fall within the ambit of Entry 23-B in the First Schedule to the Act. No doubt, the heading of the Entry covered porcelainware of all sorts. If we stop there, there is no difficulty in stating that any kind of porcelainware will fall within the Entry. But then, when one looks into the itemisation of articles in the Entry, doubt arises whether an article like H.R.C. fuselinks will be within the ambit of the Entry. The enumeration of the articles consists of tableware, sanitaryware and glazed tiles. Fuselinks of the type we have here has no possible analogy at all to any of the things mentioned there. The enumeration of the articles consists of tableware, sanitaryware and glazed tiles. Fuselinks of the type we have here has no possible analogy at all to any of the things mentioned there. It is no doubt true that the fourth item of Entry 23-B is not otherwise specified and this phraseology read with all sorts may perphaps justify a contention that porcelain of all sorts, although not tableware, sanitaryware and glazed tiles will fall within the scope of Entry 23-B. But the pointed argument of Mr. Utham Reddi before us is that H.R.C. fuselink as such is not and cannot be described as porcelainware. We have already noted the meaning of the word "ware" and this word "ware" occurs as part of tableware, sanitaryware and glazed tiles. To our minds, it is difficult to regard H.R.C. fuselink as porcelainware merely because that component forms part of the finished article, we cannot take it that by itself will come within Entry 23-B, for, it must be a porcelainware as such. Hardly H.R.C. fuselink can be described as a porcelainware as we commonly understand the phrase. That the Legislature is famiarion with a fuselink like the one we have before us is clear from the fact that in Item No. 73 (1) of the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, the article is described as follows :- "Electrical Control Gear and Transmission Gear, namely Switches (excluding switch boards), fuses and current breaking devices of allsorts and descriptions, designed for use in circuits of less than ten amperes and at a pressure not exceeding 250 volts." * This is an article which will fall possibly under that Entry 73 (1). By no stretch of imagination, we can say that merely because an article described under Entry 73(1) contains, as a component, a piece of porcelain, it becomes a porcelainware for purposes of that Entry. No less can it become porcelainware for purposes of Entry 23-B in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 5.We are therefore, of opinion that H.R.C. fuselink in this case will not be liable to excise duty under Entry 23-B. The petitioner is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.