@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G.S. Singhvi, J.@mdashWhether the process of corrugation of metallic sheets amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the
letter dated 3-7-2000 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-II, Derabassi, District Patiala (respondent no. 5) requiring it to obtain
licence under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules). The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to
clear the goods, i.e., galvanised corrugated sheets (for short, GC sheets) manufactured by it without insisting on payment of duty under the Act.
2. The petitioner is engaged in the processing of metallic sheets as its factory situated at village Samalheri. It purchases duty-paid sheets and zinc
from domestic market and undertakes the activity of galvanisation and corrvigation on the said sheets. In 1998, it applied for registration under the
Act. The competent authority issued registration certificate on 29-4-1998. On that very day, the petitioner''s representative submitted letter to
respondent No. 5 for withdrawal of the registration by contending that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Steels Tubes
Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1981 (42) E.L.T. 513 and by the Gujarat High Court in Zaverchand Gaekwad Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, and circular
No. 19/94/94-C.E., dated 9-2-1994 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi (for short, the Board), galvanisation of steel
strips does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) and, therefore, no duty is payable by it. No order appears to have been
passed by the concerned authority on that application, but after about 2 years, a team of the officers of Central Excise Department visited the
factory of the petitioner and detained 142.260 MT of galvanised corrugated sheets on the ground of violation of Rules 9(1), 33, 173, 174 and 226
of the Rules. The same were handed over to Shri Ram Murti Mukhriya, General Manager (Works) on supurdginama. The petitioner made
representations dated 2-6-2000 and 26-6-2000 for release of the goods by contending that galvanisation and corrugation does not amount to
manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act but, instead of releasing the goods, Inspector (Prevention), Central Excise, Chandigarh
seized the detained goods on 10-7-2000 u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and again handed over the same to the Director of the petitioner on
supurdginama.
3. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 5 issued letter Annexure P.5, dated 3-7-2000 vide which he called upon the petitioner to obtain registration
certificate under Rule 124 of the Rules. After obtaining the required registration certificate, the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of a declaration that the processes of galvanisation and corrugation do not amount to
manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and, therefore, no duty is payable on the goods manufactured by it. In support of this
plea, the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala (supra), Union of India (UOI)
Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, , Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. and Others, , M/s. Ranadey Micronutrients
etc. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, and Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 2000 (115) E.L.T. 42 and the Board''s
circular dated 9-2-1994.
4. The respondents have not controverted the petitioner''s assertion that galvanisation of metallic sheets does not amount to manufacture within the
meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, but they have controverted its claim for exemption by contending that the process of corrugation does amount
to manufacture within the meaning of the said section. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that the
process of corrugation of plain and galvanised sheets brings into existence a new product having different characteristics and marketability with a
different name and, therefore, it amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. According to them, the corrugated
galvanised sheets (which are also known as G.C. sheets in the market) have a different commercial identity and use and the price thereof is higher
than the plain metallic sheets or galvanised metallic sheets. They have further averred that the galvanised plain sheets are commonly used in the
manufacture of desert coolers, boxes, trunks etc., whereas the galvanised corrugated sheets are used in roofing, shelter etc. and their classification
under the Central Excise Act, 1944 is also different. The respondents have also sought dismissal of the writ petition as premature by asserting that
final order has not been passed in pursuance of the show cause notice Annexure R. 1, dated 22-11-2000 issued by the Deputy Commissioner,
Central Excise, Chandigarh.
5. The petitioner has filed replication reiterating its plea that the process of corrugation does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of
Section 2(f) of the Act. It has also controverted the assertion of the-respondents about the price difference between the galvanised sheets and
corrugated galvanised sheets by stating that the price shown in invoice No. 152, dated 1-3-2000 (Rs. 20,200/- per MT) relates to defective
galvanised sheets which were sold at rate less than normal price of the galvanised sheets. According to it, the difference between the price of the
galvanised sheets and galvanised corrugated sheets is not more than Rs. 300/- and both type of sheets fall under the same tariff heading. As
regards the objection raised by the respondents to the maintainability of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that show cause notice issued
during the pendency of the writ petition cannot be relied upon for non-suiting it.
6. Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that the process of galvanisation and/or corrugation of metallic sheets does
not involve manufacture of any new product and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been compelled to seek registration and in any case, it
cannot be asked to pay duty on the corrugated galvanised sheets. He referred to the Chamber''s 21st Century Dictionary to show that the process
of corrugation does not change the nature or character of the metallic sheets and submitted that even though the commercial use of corrugated
galvanised sheets may be slightly different than the plain sheets or galvanised plain sheets, the petitioner is not liable to pay duty on the corrugated
sheets. Shri Sarin relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala (supra), Swastik Paper Industries
Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Collector of Central Excise, Shillong Vs. Wood Craft Products Ltd., and the decisions of the Gujarat
and Jammu and Kashmir High Courts in State of Gujarat v. Shah Veljibhai Motichand, Lunaioada (1969) 23 S.T.C. 289 and Sales Tax
Commissioner v. Jammu Iron and Steel Syndicate (1980) 45 S.T.C. 99.
7. Shri Rajesh Cumber, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner cannot escape its liability to pay excise duty because the
process of corrugation of metallic sheets amounts to ''manufacture'' within the meaning of Section 2(f). He submitted that the corrugation of metallic
sheets brings into existence a new product having different characteristics, marketability and use. Learned Counsel referred to the tests laid down
by the Supreme Court for determining whether the particular process is covered by the definition of manufacture and argued that the petitioner
cannot seek exemption from payment of duty in respect of corrugated galvanised metallic sheets manufactured by it. He further argued that the writ
petition should be dismissed as premature because no final order has been passed by the competent authority in pursuance of the show cause
notice dated 21-11-2000.
8. Before adverting to the main issue, we consider it appropriate to mention that the respondents have not challenged the petitioner''s assertion that
in view of the circular dated 9-2.1994 issued by the Board, galvanisation of metallic sheets does not amount to manufacture and, therefore,
galvanised metallic sheets cannot be subjected to excise duty. In our opinion, even if the respondents had controverted this plea of the petitioner,
we would have granted relief of it in accordance with the Board''s circular because it is a settled proposition of law that the circular issued by the
Board are binding on the departmental authorities - Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) and Steel Authority of India
Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra).
9. The stage is now set for consideration of the main question as to whether the process of corrugation of metallic sheets amounts to manufacture
within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. The said section reads as under:
Section 2(f) - ""manufacture"" includes any process -
(i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product;
(ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the section or Chapter notes of the Schedule [to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986]
as amounting to manufacture, and the word ''manufacture'' shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired
labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own
account.
10. Though, the above reproduced definition of the term ''manufacture'' appears to be quite simple, its application has given rise to several cases
and for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in this petition, it will be useful to notice some of them.
11. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question as to
whether the refined oil produced in the process of manufacturing vanaspati can be subjected to duty under Item 12 of Schedule I appended to the
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Their Lordships quoted with approval the following observations made in an American judgment which was
referred to in Volume 26 of Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases:
Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and
manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name,
character or use.
12. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court then held that the word ''manufacture'' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as bring into
existence a new substance and does not mean merely to produce some change in substance, howsoever minor and inconsequential, the change
may be.
13. In Allenbury Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramkrishna Dalmia and Others, , the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether rolling of a
billets into circle amounts to manufacture u/s 2(f). While answering the question in affirmative, their Lordship observed as under:
The word ''manufacture'' is defined in Section 2(f) of the Act as including any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured
product. The rolling of a billet into a circle is certainly a process in the course of completion of the manufactured product, viz., circles. In the
present case, as we have already indicated earlier, the product, that is sought to be subjected to duty, is a circle within the meaning of that word
used in item 26A(2). In the other two cases which came before this Court, the articles mentioned in the relevant items of the First Schedule were
never held to have come into existence, so that the completed product, which was liable to excise duty under the First Schedule, was never
produced by any process. In the case before us, circles in any form are envisaged as the completed product produced by manufacture which are
subjected to excise duty. The process of conversion of billets into circles was described by the Legislature itself as manufacture of circles.
14. Empire Industries Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, , a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court considered as to whether
the activities of dyeing, printing and finishing of cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of
the Act. After considering the issue from different angles, their Lordships held that the process undertaken by the petitioner-company amounted to
manufacture within the meaning of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment made in 1979. Some of the observations made in that decision are
extracted below :
Whatever may be the operation, it is the effect of the operation on the commodity that is material for the purpose of determining whether the
operation constitutes such a process which will be part of ''manufacture''. The test to determine whether a particular activity amounts to
''manufacture'' or not is: Does new and different goods emerge having distinctive name, use and character. The moment there is transformation into
a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own character, use and name, whether be it the result of
one process of several processes and ''manufacture'' takes place and liability to duty is attracted. Etymologically the word ''manufacture'' properly
construed would doubtless cover the transformation. It is the transformation of a matter into something else and that something else is a question of
degree, whether that something else is a different commercial commodity having its distinct character, use and name and commercially known as
such from that point of view is a question depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. The afore-mentioned decision was approved by a Constitution Bench in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, : (1989) 3 SCC 488. After
formulating several questions including the one as to whether the process of bleaching, dyeing, printing, sizing, shrink-proofing etc. carried on in
respect of cotton or man-made ''grey-fabrics'' amount to ''manufacture'' for purposes and within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises
and Salt Act, 1944 prior to the amendment of the said Section 2(f) by Section 2 of the Amending Act 6 of 1980 and answered the same in the
following words:
The prevalent and generally accepted test to ascertain that there is ''manufacture'' is whether the change of the series of changes brought about by
the application of processes take the commodity to the point where, commercially, it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is,
instead, recognised as a distinct and new article that has emerged as a result of the process. There might be borderline cases where either
conclusion with equal justification be reached. Insistence on any sharp or intrinsic distinction between ''processing'' and ''manufacture'', results in an
over simplification of both and tends to blur their interdependence in cases such as the present one.
16. In Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, Deedwana, Rajasthan, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme
Court examined the same issue in the context of claim for exemption claimed by the respondent from payment of duty in respect of the raw
material used for manufacture of crude sodium sulphate. Their Lordships referred to the definitions of the words ''manufacture'' and ''process'' and
held as under :
Clause 2(f) gives an inclusive definition of the term ''manufacture''. According to the dictionary, the term ''manufacture'' means a process, which
results in an alteration or change in the goods which are subjected to the process of manufacturing leading to the production of a commercially new
article. In determining what constitutes ''manufacture'' no hard and fast rule can be applied and each case must be decided on its own facts having
regard to the context in which the term is used in the provision under consideration. Manufacture implies a change but every change is not
manufacture, yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. Naturally, manufacture is the end result of one or
more processes through which the original commodities are made to pass. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one class to another.
There may be several stages of processing, a different kind of processing at each stage. With each process suffered the original commodity
experiences a change. Whenever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation
would amount to processing of the commodity. But is only when the change or a series of changes take the commodity to the point where
commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct article that a manufacture can
be said to take place. Manufacture thus involves series of processes. Process in manufacture or in relation to manufacture implies not only the
production but the various stages through which the raw material is subjected to change by different operations. It is the cumulative effect of the
various processes to which the raw material is subjected to, manufactured product emerges. Therefore, each step towards such production would
be a process in relation to the manufacture. Where any particular is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that
process manufacture or processing of goods would be impossible or commercially inexpedient, that process is one in relation to the manufacture.
17. In Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. S.D. Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the question that arose before the Supreme Court was
whether distillation and recrystalisation carried out by the respondent amounts to manufacture. The Assistant Collector accepted the plea of the
respondent that the process of purification and distillation undertaken by it does not amount to process of manufacture and as such, it was entitled
to get exemption from duty under Notification No. 77 of 1963 dated 1-3-1963. The Collector (Appeals) held that the process undertaken by the
respondent amounts to manufacture because a new commodity known to the market emerges as a result of such process. In the appeal filed by the
respondent before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, the Technical Member accepted the plea of the
respondent but the Judicial Member took a contrary view. The matter was then referred to the third Member who, without dealing with the issue
discussed by the two Members, upheld the contention of the respondent. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the majority . of the Tribunal
and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. Their Lordships referred to the decisions in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills (supra),
Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), Ujagar Prints v. Union of India (supra) and proceeded to lay down the following proposition :
The decisions aforesaid make it clear that the definition of the expression ''manufacture'' u/s 2(f) of the Act is not confined to the natural meaning
of the expression ''manufacture'' but is an expansive definition. Certain processes, which may not have otherwise amounted to manufacture, are
also brought within the purview of and placed within the ambit of the said definition by the Parliament. Not only processes which are incidental and
ancillary to the completion of manufactured product but also those processes as are specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter
notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are also brought within the ambit of the definition. As has been repeatedly observed
by the Court, though the principles enunciated are clear, it is their application that presents difficulties and it does not help to draw any sharp or
instrinsic distinction between ''processing'' and ''manufacture'', which would only result in an over-simplification of both and tends to blur their
interdependence in cases such as the present one (Ujagar Prints)"". It would also be not right as pointed out in Ujagar Prints to try to restrict the
sweep of the definition with reference to Entry 84 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Since the constitutionality of the said definition
has been repeatedly upheld with reference to both Entries 84 and 97 of List I (Empire Industries and Ujagar Prints), the definition must be
understood in terms it is couched. It should also be remembered that the question whether a particular process does or does not amount to
''manufacture'' as defined u/s 2(f) is always a question of fact to be determined in the facts of a given case applying the principles enunciated by this
Court. One of the main tests evolved by this Court is whether on account of the processes employed or applied by the assessee, the commodity so
obtained is no longer regarded as the original commodity but is, instead, recognition as a distinct and new article that has emerged as a result of
processes (Ujagar Prints).
18. The question as to whether the printed cartons manufactured by the appellant could be treated as product of printing industry so as to entitle it
to claim exemption under the notification issued by the Government arose for consideration in Rollatainers Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India
(UOI) and Others, . While rejecting the appellant''s plea, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under :
...The literature referred to by the appellant only shows that the printing industry has advanced to such an extent that one can print on almost
anything such as glass, metal or synthetic base. Earlier the printing activity was primarily confined to printing of books, literature, newspaper and
periodicals etc. The advanced printing industry covers a much wider field of activity that it did in the past. Can we, therefore, say that every
material on which printing work is done becomes a product of the Printing Industry? The answer has to be in the negative. An ordinary carton
without any printing on it is a completed product and undisputable the product of the Packaging Industry. The question for our consideration is,
does it cease to be the product of Packaging Industry as and when some printing is done on the said carton? We are of the view that to a common
man in the trade and in common parlance a carton remains a carton whether it is a plain carton or a printed carton. The extreme contention that all
products, on which some printing is done, are the products of the Printing Industry cannot be accepted....
What is exempt under the Notification is the product of the ''Printing Industry''. The ''product'' in this case is the carton. The Printing Industry by
itself cannot bring the carton into existence. Any amount of fancy printing on a card-board would not make it a carton. In the process of
manufacturing the printed cartons, the card-board has to be cut, printed, creased and given the shape of a carton by using paste or gum. Simply
because there are expensive prints on the carton such a printed carton would not become the product of the Printing Industry. It shall remain the
product of the Packaging Industry.
19. In Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra), a two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the
process of printing glass bottles can be treated as ''manufacture'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. Their Lordships referred to various
judicial precedents on the subject and answered the question in the negative by making the following observations:
The question is, whether the product would serve any purpose but for the printing. If the product could serve a purpose even without printing and
there is no change in the commercial product after the printing is carried out, the process cannot be said to be one of ''manufacture''.
20. Some other observations made in that decision, which appear to support the plea of the petitioner, are also extracted below :
On an analysis of the aforesaid rulings, a two-fold test emerges for deciding whether the process is that of ''manufacture''. First, whether by the
said process a different commercial commodity comes into existence or whether the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist; secondly,
whether the commodity which was already in existence will serve no purpose but for the said process. In other words, whether the commodity
already in existence will be of no commercial use but for the said process. In the present case, the plain bottles are themselves commercial
commodities and can be sold and used as such. By the process of printing names or logos on the bottles, the basic character of the commodity
does not change. They continue to be bottles. It cannot be said that but for the process of printing, the bottles will serve no purposes or are of no
commercial use.
21. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned decisions are as under :
(i) the definition of the expression ''manufacture'' u/s 2(f) of the Act is not confined to its natural meaning but is an expansive definition and certain
processes, which may not have otherwise amounted to manufacture have also been brought within the ambit of the said definition;
(ii) no hard and fast rule can be applied in determining what constitutes ''manufacture'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, and each case
will have to be decided on its own facts but, broadly speaking, the particular activity or process would amount to manufacture if new and different
goods emerge having distinctive name, use and character by applying such activity or process;
(iii) the moment there is a transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own
character, use and name, whether be it the result of one process or several processes, the manufacture takes place;
(iv) where the change or series of changes brought about by the application of process take the commodity to the point where commercially it can
no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is, instead, recognised as a new and distinct article that has emerged as a result of the
process;
(v) whenever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount to
processing of the commodity but it is only when the change or a series of changes take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no
longer be regarded as the original commodity and is recognised as a new and distinct article that a manufacture can be said to take place.
22. In the light of the above propositions, we shall now consider whether the process of corrugation of metallic sheets undertaken by the petitioner
amounts to manufacture within the definition of the said term. The word ''corrugation'' has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. Therefore, it
will be useful to refer to the dictionary meanings and take help of other literatures on the subject. As per Chamber''s 21st Century Dictionary, the
word ''corrugate'' means to fold into parallel rides so as to make stronger and corrugation is an act of wrinkling. As per New Oxford Illustrated
Dictionary, Volume-I, ''corrugate'' means contract into wrinkles or folds, mark with, bend into, parallel folds or ridges and corrugated means
galvanised sheet iron bent into a series of parallel ridges and grooves, used for roofing etc. : - paper, type of ridged packing paper. In
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 6, corrugated iron and the process of galvanising and corrugating etc. have been described in the following
words :
Corrugated iron. - Although many millions of galvanized corrugated sheets are now in use all over the world, this industry is less than 100 years
old. British makers were the pioneers. At first, the sheets were made from wrought or puddled iron (not steel), and corrugated in the black, then
galvanized by hand dipping in an open bath of molten zinc. The output naturally was small, and the cost high, but the quality was excellent, so much
so that galvanized corrugated iron sheets are known to be still in use although they were fixed in position 50 years ago.
After the steel making process became a commercial proposition about 1860, steel sheets were produced in the heavier gauges but it was not until
about 30 years later that they were made successfully in the lighter gauges. The output per shift was so much larger and the cost so much lower
than iron, that steel sheets very quickly ousted the old fashioned iron sheets. But, it must be admitted that the life of ordinary quality galvanized
corrugated steel sheets is only about 25% that of the original iron sheets. Iron sheets, of higher purity than ever, are being made not only in Great
Britain but on the Continent and in America, for those who see the wisdom of paying a higher price for an article of longer life, but 95% of the so
called ''corrugated iron'' is really steel. The corrugating process enables much lighter gauges of sheets to be used because it makes them very rigid
and portable.
Galvanizing and Corrugating. - The black sheets are first put through the pickling process. This is done in a stone or timber tank which is filled
either with sulphuric or hydrochloric acid to remove all scale, oxide or rust. This operation can be carried out either by hand pokers or by an
automatic pickling machine. After being cleansed in a water tank, the flat sheets are then fed into the galvanizing bath either by hand or by an
automatic feeder, one at a time. The galvanizing bath is made of steel plates from 1 in. to 1-1/2 in. thick and of a size to suit the width of sheets to
be treated. Inside the bath there is the galvanizing machine with rollers which revolve in the molten spelter or zinc which is heated to 850 F. The
sheets pass rapidly through the zinc and emerge at the other side of the bath through two exist rollers; these rollers, together with the speed of the
machine and temperature of the bath, regulate the quantity of zinc covering, viz. from 1-1/4 to 2-1/2 Oz. per square foot. A flux is used in the
process made from muriate of ammonia and this causes the zinc to flow freely and gives the sheet a smooth surface. When sheets are wanted with
a bright flowery spangle, it is necessary to add a small proportion of tin to mix with the zinc. The sheets automatically pass through a tank of hot
water to wash off any flux stains and then they pass on to a drying fire and finally they are examined by inspectors.
The sheets then pass to the corrugating department. The galvanized flat sheets are here corrugated to the size of corrugation required, either by
powerful presses when several sheets are corrugated at a time or in rotary corrugated rollers usually doing one sheet at a time. In either case the
process is rapid and a large tonnage is obtained. The corrugated sheets are then weighed up, bundled or packed for shipment; or they are put into
store in their various sizes and gauges.
Laying Corrugated sheets. - For roofs the sheets should have end laps of not less than 6 in. The usual side lap for ordinary purposes is half a
corrugation, that is to say, the last corrugation in each sheet overlaps. This is known as ''single side lap''. For special purposes such as stores,
warehouses and dwelling-houses, the last two corrugation in each sheet should be over-lapped, otherwise termed double side laps''. Sheets for
sides of buildings can be laid with 3 or 4 in end-laps, and half corrugation or single side laps. Bolts, nails or screws should always be placed in the
top corrugation. Wood screws or nails should be placed 6 in. apart. Bolts for fixing sheets together should be about 15 in. apart along the side
corrugation. Hook bolts for iron framed buildings should be about 12 in apart. All screws and sheet bolts should have at least one iron or lead
washer under the head; one of each is recommended. Hook bolts should have curved washers, either round or diamond shaped. In laying sheets,
the workman should begin at the bottom row, and work towards the ridge of roof.
Galvanized sheets should be stored very carefully in a dry, well-ventilated place, and any sheets which have become damp or wet in transit should
be wiped thoroughly dry before storing. On no account should they be stored in bundles in a damp atmosphere. If sheets must be stored in the
open air or under poor conditions, they should be stacked in such a manner as to allow a good air space between them.
23. From these dictionary meanings and the description of the process of corrugation it becomes clear that corrugation of plain sheets and
galvanised sheets brings into existence a new product having an altogether different identity and use. In their written statement, the respondents
have also averred that the process of corrugation of metallic sheets leads to the creation of a product which has different commercial identity/name,
marketability and use and the cost of the new product is higher than the original one, i.e. metallic sheets/galvanised sheets. The petitioner has
controverted the assertion of the respondents about the price of G.C. sheets but no evidence has been placed on record to prove that the price of
galvanised metallic sheets/plain sheets is the same as that of G.C. sheets. Therefore, by applying proposition Nos. (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) to the facts
of this case, we hold that the process of corrugation undertaken by the petitioner amounts to ''manufacture'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of
the Act and the respondents have not committed any illegality by requiring it to obtain registration and pay the excise duty on G.C. Sheets.
24. Before concluding, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Swastik Paper Industries Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . In
that case, the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the corrugated paper board manufactured by the appellant was included in the
expression ''paper board'' which was excluded from exemption notification issued by the Government of India. Their Lordships referred to Tariff
Item No. 17 as well as the dictionary meanings etc. and held that corrugated paper board falls within the ambit of the term ''paper board'' and as
such, the production of the appellant was not exempted from duty. In our opinion, that decision is of no help to the petitioner because the same
proceeds on the premise that process of corrugation of paper boards does not bring into existence a new product having different commercial
identity and use. As against this, the process of corrugation of metallic sheets undertaken by the petitioner brings into existence a new product
having different commercial identity, marketability and use.
25. The decision of J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra) is also distinguishable. In that case, the Supreme Court had considered the question as to
whether the printing glass bottles can be treated as ''manufacture'' for the purpose of the Act and held that the process of printing does not change
the commercial identity of product which continues to be sold as bottles. Therefore, second test culled out in that decision will have to be read in
the backdrop of the issue raised therein and confined to like cases. Any other reading of that decision may render it inconsistent with the decision
of Larger Bench in Empire Industries Ltd. (supra), M/s. Ujagar Prints (supra) and Rajasthan State Chemical Works (supra).
26. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.