JUDGMENT P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, CJ. — As directed by this Court on 19.8.1987 the following question of law was referred to this Court for its opinion by the Appellate Tribunal. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), New Delhi. “Whether aluminum strips manufactured by the petitioner as intermediate product during the periods in question is leviable to tax under the Act ?" 2. The petitioner was issued a notice by the Superintend¬ent, Central Excise, Cuttack-II Range demanding Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 14,255.76 basic and Rs. 1,425.58 special under Rule 9 (1) of the Central Excise Rules in respect of Alumi¬num Strips of 2861.120 Kgs. made by the petitioner without pay¬ment of Central Excise duty and without preparing any Central Excise Documents. Notice was also issued to show cause why the amount referred to above should not be recovered as duty and why the goods under reference should not be confiscated. The reply to the show-cause being given, the question that arose for considera¬tion before the authority was whether the Aluminium Strips manu¬factured by the petitioner was liable to duty under T.I. 27 (b) of the Central Excise Tariff. Before the authority question raised was whether the item could be assessed allegedly retro¬spectively rather than whether it was liable to duty under T.I. 27 (b) of Central Excise Tariff. The original authority held that it was assessable to duty under T.I. 27(b) of Central Excise Tariff. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) who confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector. There was a further appeal to the Tribunal. The issue raised before the Tribunal was whether the aluminium strips would fall under entry T.I. 27(b) or T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The argument was that the aluminium strips produced by the petitioner did not have the width and dimension in respect of some other matters like copper and whether in that situation, the aluminium strips manufactured could be treated as coming under entry No. 27 (b) of Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal held that the liability of the petitioner had to be assessed with reference to particular entry and not based on any comparison with other matters or entries and since the entry covered aluminium strips, whatever be its dimension, the same was exigible to duty under T.I. 27 (b) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal held that the liability of the petitioner had to be assessed with reference to particular entry and not based on any comparison with other matters or entries and since the entry covered aluminium strips, whatever be its dimension, the same was exigible to duty under T.I. 27 (b) of the Central Excise Tariff. Feeling aggrieved by this finding of the Tribunal, the petitioner sought the reference of the following question to this Court. “Whether a company can be levied with excise duty under Rule 9(2) for a period retrospectively when the authorities were not sure whether the item was dutiable or not and the company will all bona fides and without any dishonest and fraudulent motive cleared the goods with the knowledge of the Central Excise Au¬thorities”. 3. It has to be noted that the question whether the product was exigible to duty under T.I. 27 (b) of Central Excise Tariff was not even sought to be raised by way of reference by the petitioner. The Tribunal took the view that the petitioner was not entitled to have such a question referred since the dis¬pute related to the liability of the product for duty and refer¬ence of such a question was not warranted. It was in that context that the petitioner approached this Court with its application for compelling a reference and this Court directed the reference of the question as noted by us in the beginning. 4. There is no dispute that aluminium strips are manufac¬tured by the petitioner, though according to it it was a product obtained at an intermediate stage of production and was not the ultimate product. Entry No. T.I. 27 (b) of the Central Excise Tariff imposes liability for duty for aluminium strips. There is nothing to show that the said entry is confined to levy of duty on what is called the final product or the end product and is not applicable to a product sought to be described as an intermediate product. The entry clearly covers aluminium strips. It may be noted that the relevance of the dimension of the aluminium strips sought to be pressed into service by the petitioner is also not the subject matter of the question referred to us for decision as compelled by this Court. The entry clearly covers aluminium strips. It may be noted that the relevance of the dimension of the aluminium strips sought to be pressed into service by the petitioner is also not the subject matter of the question referred to us for decision as compelled by this Court. The only question that requires to be answered is whether aluminium strips admittedly manufactured by the petitioner as an intermediate product is liable to duty. In the absence of any indication that such a product is not liable to duty, we are satisfied that the question referred to us for decision has to be answered against the petitioner and in favour of the department. In other words, the question has been answered by holding that the product manufactured by the petitioner during the period in question is liable to duty under the Act. Reference answered.