Uday Sinha, J. - (1.) The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter called "the Tisco"), the petitioner in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has moved this Court for quashing the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, dated 24.9.1982 (Annexure-2) and Annexure-3 dated 29.1.1983. By Annexure-2 the Collector adjudicated that the petitioner was liable to pay excise duty amounting to Rs. 39,97,718.14 as differential duty under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) and Rs. 1,56,81,092.25 as duty under Tariff Item 68.
(2.) When the case was called on for hearing, we suggested to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if he would choose to exhaust his internal remedy under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 rather than press the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution. He chose to press the present application and not to waste time before the appellate excise authorities. Rule having been issued, we cannot refuse to adjudicate the matter on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. We have, therefore, heard this matter and now proceed to judgment.
(3.) The petitioner manufactures wheels, tyres and axles of railways. The buyers of these products are the Indian Railways. Apart from selling wheels, tyres and axles for Railway wagons, the petitioner also sells and supplies wheels and axles as a composit unit. These are forged products. Before supplying these items to the Railways, these forged items are machined and polished by the petitioner. That brings about the rub falling for consideration before us. The stand of the petitioner is that forged steel products fall within the ambit of Tariff Item 26AA(ia) of the Central Excise Rules (sic). The stand of the revenue is that these products after the stage of forging obviously fall within Tariff Item 26AA(ia) and dutiable as such. The further stand of the revenue is that after machining and polishing these items, a new product comes into being, and therefore, the new machined and polished tyres, axles, etc., fall within the ambit of Tariff Item 68 and separately dutiable as such. Thus whereas according to the petitioner, these products are dutiable only under Tariff Item 26AA(ia), according to the revenue, they are dutiable also under Tariff Item 68.;