Susanta Chatterji, J. - (1.) The present writ petition filed by Hindusthan Safety Glass Works Limited prayed for, inter alia, issuing of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to levy any duty of excise on broken glass/cullets arising in the process at the petitioner's factory under Item 23A of the First Schedule of the Act being Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the order bearing No. 391B dated July 18, 1981 and the purported Tariff Advice Bearing No. 76/81 dated August 4, 1981 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the purported order bearing No. V -23A(3)2 -AC/81 dated November 20, 1981 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta -X Division and to refund the amount realised as alleged duty of excise on such broken glass/cullets and to, further, act in accordance with law, and for other consequential reliefs as fully stated in the writ petition itself.
(2.) It is alleged that in course of making and/or producing toughened glass, laminated glass and mirrors, glass being brittle and fragile by nature, breakage occurs at various stages. Such broken glass/waste is otherwise known as cullets which can only be used after remelting for the manufacture of glass and glassware. It is also alleged that such broken glass/cullets is a waste product and nothing but scrap and is not 'goods' within the meaning of the said Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1944) and/or otherwise and cannot be ordinarily bought and sold in the market as finished manufactured goods. The broken glass/cullets not being goods cannot be said to be subjected to any duty of excise. It is further alleged that under Sec. 3 of the said Act, 1944, duty of excise is leviable only on the manufacture of goods. The duty under said Act is not leviable on scraps or waste materials unless specified in the First Schedule of the said Act, 1944.
(3.) Stating in details all the above facts, the writ petition has been filed and a Rule was issued on February 9, 1982. The writ petitioner has come to this Court on the ground that the duty of excise under Sec. 3 of the said Act, 1944 can only be levied on the manufacture of goods and 'manufacture' within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Act implies a change in the raw materials but every change is not manufacture. It is asserted that the thrust of the manufacturing process must be the production of a finished excisable goods. Broken glass cannot be considered as finished excisable goods and it does not ordinarily come to the market to be brought and/or sold.;