A.K. Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged order Annexures 3, 5 and 7 and has further prayed that Clause 3 of Notification No. 114/72, dated 1st April, 1972 and Clause 4 of the Notification No. 52/68 dated 23rd March, 1968 may not be made applicable to A.C.S.R. conductors size 6/1/1.96 mm supplied by the petitioner to the Director General, Supplies and Disposals and Clauses 2 and 3. of the above notifications respectively may be made applicable to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Pipalia Kalan, District Pali (Rajasthan). The petitioner got licence for the manufacture of all aluminium conductors (A.A.C.) and aluminium conductor steel reinforced (A.C.S.R.) conductors chargeable with duty under tariff item No. 33B(ii) of the Schedule attached to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1944). The petitioner, manufactured all aluminium conductors and aluminium conductor steel reinforced conductors in accordance with the specifications given in purchase orders placed by the State Electricity Boards and Government and Semi-Government undertakings including Director General, Supplies and Disposals (D.G.S. & D.). These items are normally used for transmission and distribution of electric energy. These items A.A.C. and A.C.S.R. are chargeable with excise duty ad valorem under Item 33B(ii) of the Schedule to the Act of 1944. The Government of India fixed the tariff value for A.A.C. and A.C.S.R. conductors at the rate of Rs. 7.50 and Rs. 6.25 per kg. respectively by the Notification No. 114/72, dated 1st April, 1972. This tariff rate was fixed by the Government of India under Clause 22 of Notification No. 114/72, dated 1st April, 1972, Clause 3 of Notification No. 52/68, dated 23rd March, 1968 is applicable for all A.A.C. and A.C.S.R. conductors irrespective of any specifications which the purchasers may give in their order. The petitioner manufactured these items and they were charged with the tariff value fixed by the Central Government under Clause 3 and Clause 2 of Notifications No. 52/68 and 111/72 respectively. The petitioner supplied aluminium conductor steel reinforced conductors to Director General, Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi, size 6/l/1.96mm conforming to Indian Telegraph Department specification paying central excise duty at 5 % of the tariff value fixed for A.C.S.R. conductors under Clause 3 of the Notification No. 114/72. The aforesaid goods were cleared from the petitioner's factory as usual on payment of excise duty on the basis of the tariff values fixed under the said notifications. A show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Pali on 28th December, 1972 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why differential duty should not be demanded from the petitioner, vide Annexure 1. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Jodhpur, by his order dated 20th April, 1974 did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and directed that the payment of differential duties amounting to Rs. 15,205.27 may be paid. Aggrieved against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Collector, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi. The Appellate Collector, after hearing the petitioner dismissed the appeal by the order dated 1/4.9.1975 (Annexure 5). Aggrieved against the order dated 1/4.9.1975 the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance), New Delhi, who in his turn dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the Appellate Collector. Aggrieved against the order of the joint Secretary dated 16th December, 1975 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the differential amount of duty being charged from the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the three authorities have not correctly appreciated the contentions raised by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner is squarely covered by the Notification No. 114/72, dated 1st April, 1972 and Notification No. 52/68, dated 23rd March, 1968. Both the clauses of notifications are identical. Notification dated 1st April, 1972 and notification dated 23rd March, 1968 read as under :
Notification No. 114/72-Central Excises, dated 1st April, 1972.
'In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) No. 52/68-Central Excises, dated the 23rd March, 1968, the Central Government hereby fixes for :
(i) Rubber insulated cables and flexible cords,
(ii) PVC insulated cables and flexible cords,
(iii) Power cables,
(iv) PVC insulated automobile cables,
(v) Insulated copper winding wires, and
(vi) Insulated aluminium winding wires,
specified in column 2 of Table A, Table B, Table C, Table D, Table E and Table F, respectively, hereto appended and chargeable with duty ad valorem under Item No. 33B of the First Schedule to the said Act, the tariff value specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the respective Table aforesaid :
Provided that the tariff value of uninsulated copper wires (whether single or stranded or bunched) having a sectional area of not less than 3.2429 square millimetres and chargeable with duty ad valorem under Item No. 33B of the said Schedule shall be Rs. 22.50 per kilogram.
2. The tariff value for A.A.C. and A.C.S.R., that is to say, all aluminium conductors and aluminium steel reinforced, chargeable with duty ad valorem under Item No. 33 B of the said Schedule, shall be rupees 8.60 and rupees 7.50 per kilogram respectively.
3. Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to an electric wire and cable manufactured according to any special specification given by a purchaser.'
Notification No. 52/68-Central Excises, dated 23rd March, 1968.
'G.S.R.: In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 18/64-Central Excises, dated the 19th December, 1964, No. 126/65-Central Excises, dated the 21st August, 1965 and No. 140/65-Central Excises, dated the 28th August, 1965, the Central Government hereby fixes for,
(i) Rubber insulated cables and flexible cords,
(ii) PVC insulated cables and flexible cords,
(iii) Power cables,
(iv) PVC insulated automobiles cables,
(v) Insulated copper winding wires, and
(vi) Insulated aluminium winding wires,
specified in column 2 of Table A, Table B, Table C, Table D, Table E and Table F, respectively hereto appended and chargeable with duty ad valorem under Item No. 33B of the First Schedule to the said Act, the tariff value specified in corresponding entry in column 3 of the respective Table aforesaid :
Provided that for any item which is not manufactured according to, or which does not bear any mark or symbol, of the Indian Standards Specification or the British Standard Specifications or any other International Standards Specification, the tariff value shall be five percent less than the tariff value which would have been otherwise applicable.
2. The tariff value for uninsulated copper wires (whether single or stranded or bunched) having a sectional area of not less than 3.2429 square milimeters and chargeable with duty ad valorem under Item No. 33B of the said Schedule shall be Rs. 18.00 per kilogram.
3. The tariff value for A.A.C. & A.C.S.R., that is to say, all aluminium conductors and aluminium conductors steel reinforced, chargeable with duty ad valorem under Item No. 33B of the said Schedule shall be Rs. 7.5 and rupees 6.25 per kilogram respectively.
4. Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to an electric wire and cable manufactured according to any special specification given by a purchaser.'
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that A.C.S.R. conductors were supplied to the Indian Telegraph Department through Director General, Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi according to Indian specification. It is further submitted that the conductors were manufactured according to Indian Telegraph Department specification, which confirms to Indian Standard Specification No. 398/1961. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, he will not be covered by Item No. 4 of Notification No. 52/68 and Item No. 3 of Notification No. 114/72, but he will be covered by the Item No. 3 of Notification No. 52/68 and Item No. 2 of Notification No. 114/72 and duties chargeable at the rate of Rs. 7.5 and 6.25 per kg. respectively. As against this Mr. Joshi appearing for the respondents submits that this is essentially a question of fact and all the three Courts below have taken the view that the petitioner is covered by clause 4 of the aforesaid notification and the authorities have rightly charged the differential amount of duties from the petitioner and this finding does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. I have perused all the three orders, namely, the order of the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise dated 20th April, 1974, order of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 1st September, 1975 and the order of the Joint Secretary dated 16th November, 1978 and considered the matter and 1 am of the view that the finding recorded by all the three authorities does not warrant any interference by this Court. All the three authorities have considered the matter in greater detail and it has been held that the conductors which were supplied by the petitioner to the purchaser conform (to?) the special specification given by the purchaser, [and] therefore, assessment on the basis of the tariff value in terms of the Notification Nos. 114/72 and 52/68 is ruled out. Since all the authorities have recorded this finding, 1 have not been able to persuade myself to take a different view of the matter.
6. Mr. Mehta has further contended that (in?) somewhat similar circumstance the Appellate Collector has taken view contrary to the view taken in the case of the petitioner and the judgment of the Appellate Collector, New Delhi has been placed on the record as Annexure 8. Mr. Mehta submits that in view of different opinion expressed by the Appellate Collector, the Government of India is bound by the order of the Appellate Collector Annexure 8. 1 am afraid this submission of the learned counsel is without any basis. The Central Government in its revisional jurisdiction has already held that the petitioner is not entitled to benefit in terms of the Notification No. 114/72 therefore the order of the Appellate Collector Annexure 8 issued in the case of [a] different party cannot bind the respondents.
7. Thus, in this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.