CC59 , 1994 (53 )ECR349 (SC ), 1994 (70 )ELT3 (S.C. ), 1994 INSC 37 , JT1994 (1 )SC 545 , 1994 (1 )SCALE281 , (1994 )2 SCC428 , [1994 ]1 SCR499 , [1994 ]95 STC595 (SC ), ,MANU/SC/0643/1994B.P. Jeevan Reddy#B.L. Hansaria#292SC1300Judgment/OrderALT#ECC#ECR#ELT#INSC#JT#MANU#SCALE#SCC#SCR#STCB.P. Jeevan Reddy,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24General principles of strict construction,Strict Construction of Taxing Statutes,Construction of Taxing Statutes and Evasion of Statutes,Interpretation of Statutes21649,21646 -->

MANU/SC/0643/1994

ECR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 4030-45 of 1991

Decided On: 01.02.1994

Appellants: A.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and B.L. Hansaria

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.

1. The question raised in this batch of appeals is whether the prestressed cement concrete poles manufactured by the appellant, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, are "goods" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Section 3 levies duties of excise "on all excisable goods ... which are produced or manufactured in India". The expression "excisable goods" is defined in Clause (b) of Section 2. At the relevant time, the definition ran thus: "excisable goods means goods specified in the Schedule to this Act as being subject to a duty of excise and includes sale". The expression "goods" is not defined. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, goods contemplated by Section 3 and Section 2(d) are those goods which are "marketable" and inasmuch as the poles manufactured by the appellant are not marketable, they are not goods. It is the correctness of the said submission which we have to examine.

2. The Appellant-Electricity Board requires poles of different sizes, strength and dimensions for distributing electricity generated by it. The manufacture of these poles is actually done by the contractors under the direct supervision of the Board. It is the Board which supplies the requisite material like, cement, concrete and steel. In fact, one of the main contentions raised by the appellant before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (C.E.G.A.T.), besides the one urged in these appeals, was that the manufacture of the said poles is undertaken by independent contractors and that the Board merely purchased the same from them. On this basis, it was contended that the duties of excise must be levied upon the contractors and not upon the appellant-Board. This plea is, however, not urged by the appellant's counsel before us. The only contention of Sri Shanti Bhushan, learned Counsel for the appellant is this: the poles manufactured by the appellant are of various sizes, strength and dimensions. There are about 100 types of poles. All the poles manufactured by the Board are utilised for its own purposes. They are not sold in the market. In fact, they have no