PRAKASH NARAIN, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner carries onthe business of manufacture and sale of aluminium conductors used for transmission of high voltage of electriccurrent. It has its factory, amongst other places, at Faridabad in the State of Haryana. ( 2 ) IN the process of manufacture of aluminium conductors, the petitioner obtains at an intermediary stage,what is described as aluminium rods, which are furtherprocessed to manufacture aluminium conductors and cables. The said intermediary product, according to the petitioner, is obtained by a specialised process known as the"properzi process". The resultant product, according tothe petitioner, is aluminium rods, known both technicallyas well as commercially as properzi rods. The basic rawmaterial required for the manufacture of this product ise. C. Grade aluminium ingots on which, admittedly, exciseduty is paid. The said intermediary product has been regarded by the excise authorities as attracting duty underentry No. 27 (a) (ii) of the first Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner contests the levy. It contends that the properzi rods manufactured by it arenot "wire bars, wire rods and castings. " The petitioner scase is that both commercially and technically the properzirods are not aluminium wire rods which are distinct commerical commodity and so. Entry 27 (a) (ii) cannot be invoked by the excise authorities. ( 3 ) THE petitioner also contends that the properzi rodsmanufactured by it cannot also be regarded as pipes andtubes, other than excluded pipes and tubes, mentioned inentry 27 (d)Entry 27 (3) arid ^3) reads as under : "27. ALUMINIUM (a) (i)in any crude form inclding Fifty per cent ad valoremingots, bars, blocks, slabs, bill- plus two thousand rupeesets, shots and pellets, per metric tonne. (ii) wire bars, wire rods and cast- Fifty per cent ad valoremings, not otherwise specified, plus two thousand rupeesper metric tonue. (b ). . . . (c ). . (d) pipes and rubes, other than ex- Fifty per cent ad valoremeluded pipes aid tubes. plus two thousand rapaesper metric tonne. " ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the properzi process isa specialised process in which aluminium ingots are chargedin melting furnace, each charge consists. of 2500 poundsand takes about 30 minutes for melting. After meltingthe aluminium at about 750 degree centigrade is transferred to holding furnace. Two holding furnaces areessential for continuous supply of molted aluminium tocasting machine. " ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the properzi process isa specialised process in which aluminium ingots are chargedin melting furnace, each charge consists. of 2500 poundsand takes about 30 minutes for melting. After meltingthe aluminium at about 750 degree centigrade is transferred to holding furnace. Two holding furnaces areessential for continuous supply of molted aluminium tocasting machine. From holding furnace the molted metalis taken to rotating copper mould. The speed of the nullis between 2-4 R. P. M. depending on production needed. The wheel has on its outer surface a continuously movingendless belt made of steel strip. As soon as the metal ispoured, it is held between the groove of the copper metaland the steel belt. As this is cooled from inside and outside by water sprays by the time the metal comes up onthe rotating wheel it is solidified and emerges in the formof a continuous bar. This continuous bar is automatically fed into the rolling passes while the bar is still hot soas to subject it to hot rolling. The rolling passes consist of13 progressive passes. Through these passes, hot bar isrolled and after such progressive hot rollings the bar comesout in the form of hot rolled rod of 9. 5 mm diameter incontinuous lengths. This rod is known as Properzi rod. Inasmuch as the properzi rod is obtained in continuouslength the same is collected as coils of suitable length. Even when the properzi rods emerge from the rollingpasses, its temperature is between 200 to 250 degree centigrade. Here the process ends and the product sought tobe covered by excise duty comes into existence. This product is later on by a different process converted into conductors which the petitioner claims it manufactures. Asnoticed earlier, petitioner s case is that properzi rods area distinct and different commercial commodity as againstwire rods and are not known to the market as wire rods. The said properzi rods cannot also be described as wire barsor castings which, according_ to the petitioner, are completely different and distinct commodities. ( 5 ) THE conflict between the petitioner and the exciseauthorities came about in this way. By an order dated 2/09/1970 Superintendent, Central Excise, S. R. P. II Faridabad, called upon the petitioner to clear properzirods after payment of duty as aluminium wire rods underitem 27 (a) (ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. ( 5 ) THE conflict between the petitioner and the exciseauthorities came about in this way. By an order dated 2/09/1970 Superintendent, Central Excise, S. R. P. II Faridabad, called upon the petitioner to clear properzirods after payment of duty as aluminium wire rods underitem 27 (a) (ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. Being aggrievedby the said order the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35 of the aforesaid Act before the Deputy Collectorof Central Excise, Chandigarh. The said appeal was dismissed on 7/02/1972. The Deputy Collector heldthat the product in question attracted levy of excise dutyas wire rods within the meaning of Entry 27 (a) (ii ). Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector, the petitionerfiled a revision under Section 36 of the Act to the Central. Government. The Central Government set aside the orderof the Deputy Collector and remanded the case back tohim. The Appellate Collector, respondent No. 2, heardthe appeal on 22/07/1972 but rejected the same by anorder of September 7, 1982. The Appellate Collectorheld that the product in question was obtained first by aprocess of casting as cast bar and ultimately comes out inthe form of rods having a diameter of 9. 5 mm. In hisopinion, the generality of the terminology of Entry 27 (a) (ii)clearly covered the product which could be described aswire rod. Incidentally, the Appellate Collector took assistance from the definition of the term "wire rod" in theindian Customs Tariff Guide in which it is said that wirerod is of any shape generally round and between 5 mmand 14 mm diameter and is intended for conversion intowire. According to the Appellate Collector the questionas to whether in common grade parlance the product wasknown as properzi rod as distinguished from wire rod wasnot material. The petitioner contests this and has comeup to this court under Article 226 of the Constitutioncontending that a wholly illegal and uncalled for approachhas been adopted by the excise authorities in coming tothe conclusion that the aforesaid product is covered byentry 27 (a) (ii ). ( 6 ) RULE nisi was issued by a Bench of this court andsome interim relief on stated terms was also given. Therespondents have filed two affidavits by way of return tothe rule. Both the affidavits are sworn by Shri Lakhindersingh, Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Faridabad. ( 6 ) RULE nisi was issued by a Bench of this court andsome interim relief on stated terms was also given. Therespondents have filed two affidavits by way of return tothe rule. Both the affidavits are sworn by Shri Lakhindersingh, Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Faridabad. According to the first affidavit filed on march, I,1976, the petitioner applied for the grant of L. 4 licence tomanufacture aluminium wire rods on 2/06/1969. Thislicence was issued on 25/06/1969 for manufacture ofaluminium wire rods. The licence was renewed for theyear 1970 and subsequently for the year 1971. The petitioner submitted its first classification list in. Form No. 1on 10/10/1969 declaring therein that the productto be manufactured or warehoused was "aluminium wirerods 3/8 being manufactured out of ingots after paymentof/duty under Central Excise Tariff Item 27 (a)". . Thisdeclaration was approved on 21/11/1969 and thepetitioner was allowed to clear the goods described thereinfree of duty under Notification No. l7\69 dated March I,1969. On Ma 25/03/1970 the petitioner was requestedby the Superintendent, Central Excise, SRP-II, Faridabadto submit a revised Form No. 1 as the rate of duty hadbeen changed from specific to ad valorem by a Notificationbearing Noi. 46\70 dated 1/03/1970. The relevantexemption was rescinded by Notification No. 74]70 dated 26/03/1970. The petitioner submitted four copies ofthe application in Form No. 1 and therein described asexcisable goods produced and manufactured in its factoryagain as aluminium wire rods 3/8" being manufactured outof ingots after payment of duty under Tariff Item 27 (a) andalso sought exemption from duty under Notification No. 46170 dated 1/03/1970. The Superintendent, Centralexcise, SRP-II, Faridabad, could not given approval of theclassification list as filed. This was so because the correctentry under which excise was leviable, according to him,was item 27 (a) (ii) on the basis on the description of thegoods given by the petitioner in column 4 (a) of the saidform. The petitioner had said in column 4 (c) that nilduty was to be paid but the Superintendent corrected thatto read that duty attracted was 25 per cent ad valorem plus20per cent of the basic duty as special excise duty. Thiswas done because the Notification No. 46 [70 dated 1/03/1970 relied upon by the petitioner to claim exemptionfrom payment of duty had been rescinded by Notificationno. 74 of 1970 dated 26/03/1970. The Suprintendentasked the petitioner to submit revised Form No. 1 on 25/03/1970 but the same was submitted only on 18/08/1970. Thiswas done because the Notification No. 46 [70 dated 1/03/1970 relied upon by the petitioner to claim exemptionfrom payment of duty had been rescinded by Notificationno. 74 of 1970 dated 26/03/1970. The Suprintendentasked the petitioner to submit revised Form No. 1 on 25/03/1970 but the same was submitted only on 18/08/1970. Till as late as 30/09/1970 thepetitioner had not at any time raised the question of theproduct being anything else than wire rod. However,as noticed earlier, the petitioner had gone up in appealand then filed a revision. On remand the appellateauthority again held that duty was attracted under Entry27 (a) (ii ). ( 7 ) THE respondents have raised a preliminary objectionthat the petitioner having filed a revision under Section 36of the Act from the order of the Appellate Collector dated 7/09/1972, it should not have filed the present writpetition and should have waited for the decision of thecentral Government. In reply to it the petitioner submitsthat the respondents stand being well-known as is clearfrom a reading of the counter-affidavits, posecuting therevision would be an empty formality, we agree. ( 8 ) AS we have noticed earlier, the short question fortdecision is whether what the petitioner s stand that its product namely, properzi rods, falls under Entry 27 (a) (ii), iscorrect. ( 9 ) LEARNED for the petitioner has strenuously urgedthat there is unimpeachable evidence on record which wasalso placed before the excise authorities that properzi rodsare commercially a distinct commodity from wire bars androds casting. Therefore, no excise duty is payable at all. Reliance is also placed on ISI specirications which givedifferent specifications for wire rods and properzi rods. Thedistinction is sought to be made on the basis of aluminiumrods obtained by the rolling process as opposed to extraction or casting process. In this regard reference is alsomade to the purity of the product and the quality of theraw material as well as the end production. The process bywhich the petitioner obtains the aluminium rods is notin dispute. The question to be determined is whether theprocess of manufacture has anything to do with the productor goods described for purposes of levy of excise. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, the product of the petitioner are"goods". This means that the product is a commercialcommodity. It may either be utilised for home consumption or may be sold. The question to be determined is whether theprocess of manufacture has anything to do with the productor goods described for purposes of levy of excise. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, the product of the petitioner are"goods". This means that the product is a commercialcommodity. It may either be utilised for home consumption or may be sold. The petitioner may be correct in saying that the manufacturer of conductors would go in forproperzi rods and not for any type of aluminium rods andthis commercially the Commodity is distinct. The pointin issue however, is whether the properzi rods are or arenot wire bars, wire rods and casting, not otherwise specifiedwithin the meaning of the relevant entry. ( 11 ) BEFORE dilating further on the question we may withadvantage notice the three decisions cited at the Bar. Theseare the decisions in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of Indiaand others, AIR 1977 S. C. 597 (1) Shri Vallabh Glassworks Ltd. and another v. Union of India and another,1979-E. L. T. 608 (2) and The Commissioner of Sales Tax,madhya Pradesh, Indore v: M/s. Jaswant Singh Charansingh,ai. R. 1967 s. C; 1454. (3) ( 12 ) IN Dunlop India Ltd. s case the Supreme Courtwas concerned with classification of V. P. Latex underentries in the India Traiff Act. It was held that the end useof the article was absolutely irrelevant in the context ofwhich entry a particular commuodity would fall under. Itwas also observed that. meanings given to articles in afiscal statute must be as people in trade and commerceconversant with the subject, generally treat and understandthem in usual course. Once, however, anarticle is classified and put in a distinct entry the basis of classifiction isnot open to question. The court specifically observedthat technically and scientific tests offer guidance onlywithin limits. Once the articles are in circulation and cometo be described and known in common parlance then thereis no difficulty for statutory classification under aparticularentry. ( 13 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Jaswantsingh s case was concerned with deciding under whichentry "charcoal" could be placed. Relying on the scientificand technical meaning -of term, the Revenue had contendedthat charcoal could not be classified under the generalentry of "coal". The supreme Court held that popularmeaning and not scientific and technical meaning shouldbe adopted in construing fiscal statutes. Relying on the scientificand technical meaning -of term, the Revenue had contendedthat charcoal could not be classified under the generalentry of "coal". The supreme Court held that popularmeaning and not scientific and technical meaning shouldbe adopted in construing fiscal statutes. ( 14 ) IN Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. s case the Gujarathigh Court considered whether wire glass, figured glass,rolled glass, coloured figured glass; coolex figured glass andcoolex wired glass belonged to the category of sheet glass,as was contendedby the Revenue, to subject the same toexcise duty under Tariff Item 23a (1) of the First Scheduleof the Central Excises and Salt Act. It was held that theword "glass" as mentioned in Item 23 A gives all the detailsof the items which were liable to excise duty but do not coverall types of glass. In sub-item (i) only, glass sheets and plateglass, are mentioned, the rest are all glassware . Merely because the heading of the entry is wide, it would not mean thatit would cover all types of the commodity which would becovered by the general heading unless specific provision ismade for those different parts in the body of the entry orin the item itself. The rule enunciated was that the test tofind out whether a commodity falls under a particular entryor not is a test of common parlance, as to how a commodity is known in the common market and in the commercialworld by those who normally deal with it as buyers orsellers or. as a manufacturer or as a user of such commodity. ( 15 ) THE petitioner contends that properzi rods arecommercially a distinct commodity from aluminium wireods or wire bars and castings. When a person wants to purchase properzi rods, he asks for the commodity as such andnot by saying that he wants wire rods or wire bars or castings. It is further urged that the special process by whichproperzi rods are obtained and its quality are relevant. Support for these contentions is sought from the decisions noti-fied earlier. , ( 16 ) THE process of manufacture, in our opinion, is notrelevant. Similarly, to what use the end product is put to isalso not relevant. What is apposite is the goods, themselves. Undoubtedly, the goods are one of the types of aluminiumrods. Whether these rods are obtained by casting or in anyother manner is not material. , ( 16 ) THE process of manufacture, in our opinion, is notrelevant. Similarly, to what use the end product is put to isalso not relevant. What is apposite is the goods, themselves. Undoubtedly, the goods are one of the types of aluminiumrods. Whether these rods are obtained by casting or in anyother manner is not material. The petitioner obtained a L. 4licence to manufacture aluminium wire rods. It is manufacturing aluminium wire rods. Because of a particular processadopted by it, known as the properzi process, the end product is known as a properzi rod. It is a specie belonging tothe genus of aluminium wire rods. It may be true that auser or a producer when he wants aluminium wire rods forpurposes of manufacture of conductors etc. would specifythat he wants properzi rods. That, however, does not changethe nature of the product. The entry in question does notspecify the quality of the products. It only specifies types ofproduct. Unlike the entry, as in the Gujarat case, whereplate glass etc. were specified here the entry merely readsunder the head aluminium wire rods, wire bars and castings,not otherwise specified. The argument that in the trade properzi rods are known as properzi rods and not as aluminiumwire rods would have been relevant if the entry in questionhad divided aluminium wire rods into different kinds ofaluminium wire rods. It does not do so. Therefore, there isno force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. ( 17 ) WE are fortified in coming to this conclusion fromthe conduct of the petitioner as well. As we have noticedearlier, the licence of the petitioner is for manufacture ofaluminium. . wire rods. The classification list in Form No. 1submitted by the petitioner on 10/10/1969 also declared the goods that it was manufacturing or were to bewarehoused as "aluminium wire rods 3/8". Perhaps, what3 has prompted the petitioner to come to court is that previously it was enjoying the exemption from payment of exciseduty by virtue of Notification No. 46170 dated March I,1970. This notification was rescinded by the amending Notification No. 74170 dated 26/03/1970. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel had laid some stress on the approach of the Appellate Collector and had contended thatall the detailed aspects were not enquired into by the Appellate Collector who even relied upon on a definition fromsmother aspect, which we had already noticed earller. This notification was rescinded by the amending Notification No. 74170 dated 26/03/1970. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel had laid some stress on the approach of the Appellate Collector and had contended thatall the detailed aspects were not enquired into by the Appellate Collector who even relied upon on a definition fromsmother aspect, which we had already noticed earller. It isnot necessary to dilate upon this aspect in view of thefinding given above. ( 19 ) RELIANCE on the specification issued by the Indianstandards Institution has also no relevance. Those specifications are only relevant for the quality of goods. Those specifications do not change the nature of the goods. ( 20 ) THE result is that we discharge the rule and dismissthe petition with costs Counsel s fee Rs. 550.