JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - This is a fascicle of 11 writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners challenging the orders of the respondent No. 1 and the notices issued by respondent No. 2, which are similar in all the writ petitions. 2. Whereas, the petitioner of the first set engaged in the business of manufacture of synthetic rubber, the petitioner of the second set carried on the business of manufacture of camphor and the petitioners of the third set produced a common item, i.e. liquor in their distilleries. Though the three sets of petitioners manufacture different commodities but to test the validity of the orders of the respondent No. 1 and of the notices issued by respondent No. 2, these writ petitions can be conveniently decided together and hence they are consolidated and are being decided by a common order. 3. The petitioner in the first writ petition produced synthetic rubber, for which a highly sophisticated machinery was imported from U.S.A. In the factory premises, there are several tanks, some of them are used for storing raw material, i.e., alcohol; and in some tanks, intermediary products, namely, styrene and solution, called soap, which are excisable items, are stored. In third type of tanks known as 'process tank', latex, from which final product, i.e., synthetic rubber is manufactured, is stored. After processing synthetic raw rubber, which is nothing but a processing of latex, solid synthetic rubber, which is final product of the petitioner, is manufactured. 4. In pare 3 of the supplementary-rejoinder affidavit it is stated by the petitioner that only two articles in liquid form, namely, styrene and solution (soap) are manufactured. Raw material for manufacturing synthetic rubber is alcohol, which is also a liquid material. So the case of the petitioner is that the tanks are there in the factory premises to store the raw material, i.e., alcohol, and the intermediary products, i.e., styrene and solution (soap). It is categorically stated by the petitioner that tanks used for the purpose of storing the intermediary products, i.e., styrene and solution (soap), are amenable to the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 2 and there is no dispute in regard to them. The dispute according to the petitioner relates only to those tanks which contain raw material, i.e., alcohol and a product, known as. latex, which is not sold by the petitioner as such. The dispute according to the petitioner relates only to those tanks which contain raw material, i.e., alcohol and a product, known as. latex, which is not sold by the petitioner as such. The petitioner has been called upon by the respondent No. 2, to make arrangements for converting weighing instruments of all tanks, which are presently calibrated by pound system, into the standard weight, i.e., kilogram system, and get them measured and stamped by the respondent No. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 has jurisdiction in respect of those tanks only which are covered by Section 10 of the U.P. Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959, (for short 'the Act 1959'), and not in respect of the tanks which are used for storing raw material, i.e., alcohol, and intermediary product, namely, latex, which are not sold as such. Since respondent No. 2 issued notices in respect of those tanks even, which are neither used for trade or commerce or which are not calibrated for the purpose of assessment of excise duty, the correctness of the order of the respondent No. 1 and of the notice of respondent No. 2, which are Annexure "Y" and "I" "III" & "VI" respectively to the first writ petition, has been assailed. It is said that the measuring device fitted with the tank, is for operational purposes and not for trade. The plant is automatic and it starts operating when raw material in a given quantity is filled in the tanks and the calibration by pound system of the tanks is simply to measure materials required for manufacture of final product. 5. With a little variation in facts, challenge by the petitioner in second writ petition is almost the same. The final product of the petitioner is camphor. There are numerous tanks in the factory premises, which are used for storing the raw material, intermediary product and final product. This writ petition does not raise any grievance, so far as the tanks containing final product are concerned. Raw material to manufacture camphor is turpentine oil and other chemicals. Processing of the raw material gave rise to several intermediary products. This writ petition does not raise any grievance, so far as the tanks containing final product are concerned. Raw material to manufacture camphor is turpentine oil and other chemicals. Processing of the raw material gave rise to several intermediary products. In pare 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that since the raw materials and intermediary products, which are stored in the storage tanks, are not meant for sale hence these tanks have never been certified or stamped by the Inspector. In pare 7 of the writ petition it is stated that tanks are provided with float arrangement with a view to having an idea of consumed and left over quantity stored in the tanks. This is only to enable the petitioner to make arrangement of materials well in advance and to prevent the abrupt closure of the factory for want of materials. The only difference between the case of this petitioner and case of the petitioner in the first writ petition is, whereas the former denies any trading activity, in so far as intermediary product is concerned, the later, admittedly, traded in the intermediary products, namely, styrene and solution (soap). 6. Then come the cases of the petitioners third set who manufacture Indian made foreign liquor. The liquor is stored in 'vats'. Vat is defined in Rule 45 of the Rules under the U.P. Excise Act, meaning as fixed vessel used for the storage of liquor. The common case of the petitioners of the third set is that liquor is sold in bottles, which are kept in bonded warehouse. The duty is said to have been assessed on them when they are I removed from the bonded warehouse. The I contention of the petitioners, therefore, It is that the trading activity starts when the bottles are removed from the bonded warehouse on payment of duty and before that when the raw material is processed and the liquor is stored in the vats, there is no trading activity. So, the petitioners denied their liability to get the vats measured and stamped under the Act, 1959. In short, the petitioners contended so long as the Liquor remained in the vats, neither there was trading activity nor were the vats calibrated for the purpose of assessment within the meaning of Section 2 (jj) of the Act, 1959. 7. So, the petitioners denied their liability to get the vats measured and stamped under the Act, 1959. In short, the petitioners contended so long as the Liquor remained in the vats, neither there was trading activity nor were the vats calibrated for the purpose of assessment within the meaning of Section 2 (jj) of the Act, 1959. 7. The common case of the petitioners, therefore, is that the tanks or vats, as the case may be, which are not covered by Section 10 read with Section 2 (jj) of the Act, 1959, are not required to be measured and stamped and the Inspector has no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioners to get their tanks or vats verified and stamped under the Act, 1959. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner of the first set is a commercial, concern and, therefore, all the tanks belonging to it are linked with its trade, and, therefore, prohibitory legislative measure, i.e., Section 10 clearly applies to the tanks containing raw material i.e., alcohol, and the intermediary product, namely, latex. Regarding tanks containing raw material and the intermediary product belonging to the petitioner of the second set, it is said by the respondents - "that their volume is measured and assessed at different processing stages, so that a correct final product may be obtained and account of each processing stage may be maintained.....-. ". Whereas, according to the petitioner float is provided with storage tanks to have the knowledge of the raw material or feeding material and save the factory from being closed abruptly on account of short supply of the materials, the respondents state that measuring instruments is to have full account of manufacturing at various stages. Against the vats situate in the various distilleries of the petitioners of the third set, the contention of the respondents is that they are being calibrated by the Excise Authorities and, therefore, it is evident that the calibration is being done for the assessment of duty and for no other purpose. It is also contended that the petitioners of the third set have been selling liquor direct from the issue vats. This is how all the vats are said to have been covered by Section 10 read with Section 2 (jj) of the Act, 1959. 8. It will be apposite to see the legal position first. It is also contended that the petitioners of the third set have been selling liquor direct from the issue vats. This is how all the vats are said to have been covered by Section 10 read with Section 2 (jj) of the Act, 1959. 8. It will be apposite to see the legal position first. Section 10 of the Act, 1959, runs as follows:- "10. Prohibition of sale or use of unstamped commercial weight and measures:- No weight or measure or weighing or measuring instrument shall be used or be kept for use in any transaction for trade or commerce or be sold or delivered for such use unless it has been verified or reverified in the manner prescribed and stamped in the prescribed manner by an inspector with stamp of verification." 9. The expression "use in transaction for trade or commerce" has been defined in Section 2 (jj) of the Act, 1959, which runs as follows: "2 (jj)" use in transaction for trade or commerce", with its grammatical variation and cognate expressions, means use for the purpose of determining or declaring the quantity of anything in terms of measurement of length, area, volume, capacity or weight in or in connection with - (a) any contract, whether by way of sale, purchase, exchange or otherwise; or (b) any assessment of royalty, toll, duty or other dues; or (c) the assessment of any work done or services rendered, otherwise than in relation to research or scientific studies or in individual households for house holds purposes"; 10. Section 10 gives rise to the legislative prohibition that no weight or measure of weighing f or measuring instrument shall be used or be kept for use in any transaction for trade or commerce or for being sold, unless it has teen verified and duly stamped in the prescribed manner by an Inspector of the Department. The object of the enactment of the Act 1959, is to protect the interest of the consumer. The legislature wanted to ensure by this Act that the consumer should get the quantity which he paid for and that he should not be cheated by a trader. The general object of the statute or ordinances relating to weights and measures is to protect the interest of the public and prevent fraud or imposition. The legislature wanted to ensure by this Act that the consumer should get the quantity which he paid for and that he should not be cheated by a trader. The general object of the statute or ordinances relating to weights and measures is to protect the interest of the public and prevent fraud or imposition. Ordinarily, it is intended to provide a method by which purchasers of commodities may protect themselves from short weights or measures and be enabled to obtain the quantity of property bought and paid for. It will be seen from Section 2 (jj), which defines the expression "use in transaction for trade or commerce" that the definition is not inclusive, but exhaustive, as the verb means has been used. Such definition has closed the door for importing any foreign words into Section 2 (jj). There is little scope for interpretation of Section 2 (jj). There is no need to take aid of dictionary to find out the meaning of 'trade' or 'commerce'. These words will only mean what has been stated in clauses (a) (b) or (d) of Section 2 (jj). The point is what is actually prohibited by Section 10. To understand It In most simplest terms, Section 10 prohibits use of any weight or measure In any transaction for trade or commerce meaning as the use for the purpose of determining or declaring the quantity of anything In connection with (a) any contract, whether by way of sale, purchase, exchange or otherwise, or (b) any assessment of royalty, toll, duty or other dues; or (c) the assessmenty of any work done or services rendered. 11. So, If any weight or measure is to be used in connection with any commercial contract, as defined in clause (a) to Section 2 (jj), or in connection with any assessment of excise duty etc., or in connection with the assessment of any work done or services rendered, then it necessarily requires to be verified and stamped by the Inspector with the stamp of verification. If the weight or measure is such, which is not used for any commercial contract by way of sale, purchase, exchange or otherwise, or in connection with any assessment of duty etc., or in connection with any assessment of any work done or services rendered, then the legislative prohibition will not attract to such weight or measure. If the weight or measure is such, which is not used for any commercial contract by way of sale, purchase, exchange or otherwise, or in connection with any assessment of duty etc., or in connection with any assessment of any work done or services rendered, then the legislative prohibition will not attract to such weight or measure. An exception has been carved out in Section 2 (jj) for the weight and measure, which are used in relation to research or scientific studies or in individual households for household purposes. The exception, so made, provides a clear clue that the weight or measure, which has nothing to do with the commercial transaction or with the assessment of duty etc. or assessment or any work done or services rendered, then it will not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Inspector with stamps of verification. The Inspector can involve his jurisdiction only when a weight or measure is used in commercial transaction or in connection with any assessment of duty etc. or in connection with the assessment of any work done or services rendered. If somebody uses weight or measure for determining the quantity of anything for his own satisfaction or for a purpose having nothing to do with commercial transaction affecting the public or with an assessment of duty etc. or with an assessment of any work done or services rendered, then he cannot be called upon by the Inspector with stamp of verification to get such weight or measure verified and stamped. The definition as given in Section 2 (jj) is too wide. Not only the weight or measure, which is used in commercial transactions, but the weight or measure, which is used for making an assessment of royalty, toll, duty or other dues, or for making the assessment of any work done or services rendered, also comes within the ambit of the expression 'use' In transaction for trade or commerce. 12. The validity of the orders passed by the Controller and the notices issued by the Inspector In the cases of the petitioners has to be tested by the foregoing legal position. For better understanding, It is proper to deal with the case of the petitioner of each set separately. 13. First, we take up the case of the petitioner of the first set, engaged in the manufacture of synthetic rubber. For better understanding, It is proper to deal with the case of the petitioner of each set separately. 13. First, we take up the case of the petitioner of the first set, engaged in the manufacture of synthetic rubber. In its factory, there are four types of tanks containing raw material and the intermediary product. The petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Inspector only with regard to the tanks containing raw material and one of the intermediary product, namely, latex. The tanks containing remaining intermediary product, namely, styrene and solution, known as soap, are, admittedly, subject to assessment of excise duty. So the only point is whether the tanks containing raw material and one of the intermediary product, namely, latex, fall within the scope of Section 10 read with Section 2 (jj). Sri S.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the tanks containing raw material and latex are neither used commercially, nor are they calibrated for the purpose of assessment of excise duty. It is to be made clear at this stage that so far as clause (c) of Section 2 (jj) is concerned that cannot be invoked in the cases of the petitioners of first, second and third set, inasmuch as, the tanks or vats have not been calibrated for the purpose of assessment of any work done or services rendered. What is to be seen is whether Cl. (a) or (b) of Section 2 (jj) is applicable to the cases of the petitioners. Sri Gupta submitted that the whole plant is imported and sophisticated one and it is automatically operative. The tanks containing raw material i.e. alcohol and latex, are being calibrated in pound system. The Inspector called upon the petitioner to get the measuring device converted into standard weight. i.e., from non-metric system into metric system. The burden of the submission' of Sri Gupta is that when the tanks containing raw material and latex are not used for commercial transaction and the contents thereof are not assessable under excise law and if they are calibrated merely for operational purpose, then Section 10 read with Section 2 (jj) cannot be applied to such tanks. He argued that the plant would go in operation when the tanks are filled in with the prescribed raw material and/or intermediary product. In short, the argument is that calibration device is fitted with the requisite quantity of feeding material. He argued that the plant would go in operation when the tanks are filled in with the prescribed raw material and/or intermediary product. In short, the argument is that calibration device is fitted with the requisite quantity of feeding material. There is no specific case of the respondents that the tanks containing raw material and latex are used in connection with the commercial transactions, nor is there any case that these tanks are being calibrated for making assessment of excise duty. The petitioner has categorically stated in the writ petition that the raw material and latex are not for the purpose of the sale and, therefore, no question of any assessment of excise duty arises. The respondents have made an averment of general nature that the whole concern of the petitioner is commercial and, therefore, all the tanks are being used for commercial transactions. There is no presumption that in a commercial concern everything is related to trade or commerce. As against the specific case of the petitioner, the presumptive averment of the respondents cannot be accepted. To bring the case under Section 10 read with Section 2 (jj), it was imperative for the respondents to state in the counter affidavit that the tanks containing raw material and latex are either used commercially or they are amenable to excise duty. The respondents having failed in doing so, we are of the view that the tanks containing raw material and latex are beyond the purview of Section 10. 14. The case of the petitioner of second set is almost the same as that of the petitioner of the first set. The only difference between their cases is, whereas the former denied the sale of intermediary products altogether, the latter admitted the sale of two intermediary products. The petitioner of second set also has raised no dispute with regard to the tanks containing final product, viz. camphor. The question is, whether tanks containing raw material and intermediary products are covered by Section 10. As already pointed out the case of the petitioner is that the float arrangement was provided with a view to having an idea of consumed and left over quantity stored in the tanks, so that the arrangement to secure the requisite quantity of raw material and feeding material could be made well in advance to prevent abrupt closure of the factory for want of feeding material. it is interesting to see para 8 of the counter affidavit, in which it is admitted that the petitioner does not sell raw material and/or intermediary product. But then it is stated"........ it is quite clear that their volume is measured and assessed at different processing stages, so that a correct final product may be obtained and account of each processing stage may be obtained........." The averment of the respondents in para 8 is nearer to the case of the petitioner and is not opposed to that in that the former contended that the measurements enabled the latter to have manufacturing account at different stages. Even if the contention of the petitioner that float is provided with storage tanks to have the full idea of the feeding material and save the factory from being closed abruptly due-to short supply is rejected and the contention of the respondents that the measuring' instrument was installed to have full account of manufacturing at all stages is accepted to be correct, calibration of the tanks meant for storage of raw material or intermediary product cannot be said to be covered by Section 10 read with clause (a) or (b) of Section 2 (ij). The petitioner having not traded in the raw material and intermediary products and no excise duty having been assessed on these items, the storage tanks containing raw material and intermediary-product are manifestly beyond the scope of Section 10 of the Act. 15. Then, we take up to common case of the petitioners of the third set, manufacturing liquor. The manufacturing process In all the distilleries, we presume, would have been the same. No distinction or dissimilarity has been pointed out by the petitioners in their activity of manufacture. So, It will suffice if we highlight the facts of one of the common writ petitions. We, therefore, state the facts from the writ petition No. 562 of 1981. Sri S.C. Budhwer, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that liquor is sold in bottles of standard measurements and that there is no sale direct from the vats. It was, therefore, contended that the vats are not involved in any trading activity. We, therefore, state the facts from the writ petition No. 562 of 1981. Sri S.C. Budhwer, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that liquor is sold in bottles of standard measurements and that there is no sale direct from the vats. It was, therefore, contended that the vats are not involved in any trading activity. The argument was that the duty is leviable only when the bottles are removed from bonded warehouse for the purpose of sale and prior to the stage of levying excise duty no activity of the petitioner was connected with or germane to the assessment. This is how he argued that the Inspector acted wholly without jurisdiction by having issued notices to the petitioners, calling on them to make arrangement for getting their vats measured and stamped by him. He said that prior to the sale of liquor in bottles, neither the consumer not did the Excise Department come into picture. At the first blush, the arguments looked very attractive, but a deeper scrutiny of the matter reveals that the argument is devoid of any force. 16. Let us first have an idea of manufacturing process. In para 10 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that when the liquor is produced from the process of fermentation and distillation of molasses, it is collected in the receiver vats, then it goes to the storage vats and ultimately it is transferred to issue vats. This system is not denied in the rejoinder-affidavit. 17. First it will be seen from pare 2 of the re-joinder-affidavit that the contention of Sri Budhwar that liquor is being sold only through bottles is not correct. The petitioner stated in papa 2 of the, rejoinder affidavit as follows:- "In case it is sold from the issue vets, then it is sold by measure, by weight, or by volume, as the case may be." (emphasis ours) 18. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the liquor was and is being sold only by bottles. In pare 8 of the writ petition it is stated that liquor is also sold in bulk through vessels of varying quantities. The respondents clearly stated in the counter-affidavit that the liquor was being sold in bulk from the vats. It Is, therefore, clearly borne out that when the bulk sales are made, they are made direct from the issue vats. 19. The respondents clearly stated in the counter-affidavit that the liquor was being sold in bulk from the vats. It Is, therefore, clearly borne out that when the bulk sales are made, they are made direct from the issue vats. 19. Any way, the question arising In the cases of distilleries has to be approached from a different angle. It is admitted by the petitioners that the vats are being calibrated by the Excise Department. The case of the petitioners, however, is that the vats are being calibrated by the Excise Department for administrative purpose. In pars 3 of the rejoinder-affidavit, it is stated that the vats are being calibrated 'by the Excise Department for their own satisfaction as to how much quantity of liquor has been manufactured and is stored in the various vats in order to prevent leakage and theft." The stand of the respondents is that it is implied in the calibration of the vats that they are being calibrated for the purpose of assessment and hence they are covered by clause (b) of Section 2 (jj) read with Section 10 of the Act, 1959. It is also contended by the respondents that If the calibration of the vats is necessary for the purpose of assessment of excise duty, then only the authorities of the weight and measure Department would be competent to verify the correctness of the measures being employed by the Excise Authorities, as the latter are not competent to Introduce their own weight or measurement. What is the administrative purpose? Can the Excise Authorities exercise administrative control over the distilleries? These are important questions. Law does not confer any power over the Excise Authorities to have administrative control over the distilleries. In our opinion, the administrative control will vest in the owners of the distilleries. The only function of the Excise Department is to assess and levy the excise duty and to take measures to prevent the duty evasion. So all the activities of the Excise Department boil down to assessment. The petitioners have not challenged the calibration being done by the excise personnel's on the ground that though the calibration of the vats is not necessary and yet the Excise Authorities have been interfering with their functioning by calibrating their vats. So all the activities of the Excise Department boil down to assessment. The petitioners have not challenged the calibration being done by the excise personnel's on the ground that though the calibration of the vats is not necessary and yet the Excise Authorities have been interfering with their functioning by calibrating their vats. Unless the jurisdiction of the Excise Authorities for calibrating the vat is challenged and a decision is taken by the appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings that the Excise Authorities are not empowered to calibrate the vats in connection with the assessment, there is no justification in taking the contrary view that the calibration of issue vats is not being done in regard to assessment of duty. It is evident from the calibration being done by the excise personnel's that the calibration is being done in connection with the assessment of excise duty within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 2 (jj). In these cases it is not necessary for us to go Into the (illegible) the excise law, but on admitted facts, It must be held that calibration of vats is being done for assessment purposes, because there is no other purpose of calibration being done by the excise people. The petitioners having not challenged the jurisdiction of the Excise Authorities for calibrating the vats, the only question that arose for out decision is whether the calibration is being done by the Excise Department for administrative purpose or in connection with the assessment of clause (b) of 2 (jj). The petitioners having failed to show that the administrative control of the distilleries vested in the Excise Authorities the only inference that can be drawn is that the vats are being calibrated by the excise personnel's in connection with the assessment of the excise duty. 20. We are, therefore, of the considered view that calibration of the vats situated in the distilleries Is fully covered by clause (b) of Section 10 of the Act, 1959. The Inspector, therefore, does have the jurisdiction to call upon the petitioners of the third set to make arrangement for getting their vats measured and verified by him. 21. 20. We are, therefore, of the considered view that calibration of the vats situated in the distilleries Is fully covered by clause (b) of Section 10 of the Act, 1959. The Inspector, therefore, does have the jurisdiction to call upon the petitioners of the third set to make arrangement for getting their vats measured and verified by him. 21. In the result, the Writ Petitions No. 9423 and 3536 of 1981 are allowed and the orders of the Controller and notices issued by the Inspector, which are made Annexures to the aforesaid writ petitions, in so far as they relate to tanks containing raw material and latex in the case of the petitioner of the first set and to the tanks containing raw material and intermediary products in the case of the petitioner of second set are quashed. The writ petitions of the petitioners of the third set are dismissed. Thr5 parties are left to bear their own costs.