vil Appeal Nos
1335 36 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 3101986 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in appeal No E 1568  156981 BI in Order No 67386 BI
AS Nambiar and B Parthasarthi for the Appellant
Kuldip Singh Additional Solicitor General AK Srivastava and Mrs Sushma Suri for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
These are appeals under section 35L of the hereinafter called the Act  arise from the decision of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT for short New Delhi
The question that fell for consideration by the Tribunal is whether the appellant Ms Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt
Ltd manufactured weighbridges and as such was liable to duty under the Act
It appears that weighbridges consisted of three different parts namely 1 Platform 2 Load Cells and 3 Indicating system
The contention of the appellant was that he got the platform manufactured from other people
The load cells were imported and the appellant only made the indicator system
In other words it was the case of the appellant that it manufactured only the indicator system
The question that fell for the Tribunal s determination is whether the activity indisputably carried out by the appellant amounted to manufacture and what does it manufacture It has been found that the appellant brought PG NO 3 the three components together at site fitted and assembled them together so that they can work as one machine and as such the appellant manufactured and created a new weighbridge
The aforesaid findings appear in paragraph 5 of the Tribunal s order
That weighbridge had not been excised before is not disputed
The term of the central excise speaks of weighbridge whenever weighbridges are made those weighbridges are subjected to duty as such
The Tribunal held that by whatever process it became a complete weighbridge as long as a weighbridge has been made and completed duty has to be paid
According to the Tribunal though the parts are themselves liable to excise duty and so the complete machine is also a new excisable good
In view of the well settled principles the excisable goods are manufactured by the appellant
Section 2f of the Act provides an inclusive definition and states that the word manufacture includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product
So any process by which an object becomes new commercial goods including any process incidental or ancillary to the completion would be manufacture
Manufacture means bringing into existence new goods
This Court observed in Union of India vs Delhi Cloth Mills 1963 Suppl
I SCR 586 that 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
The question therefore is whether the activity carried out by the appellant of assembling the three Components of the weighbridge brings into being complete weighbridge which was a distinctive name character or use
See also the observations of this Court in Allenburry Engineers p Ltd Ramakrishna Dalmia  Ors  and Idandas vs Ananat Ramachandra Phadke  The appellant s contention before the Tribunal was that it was only preparing a part and that part is dutiable as a separate part
The appellant however did the work of assembling
As a result of the work of the appellant a new product known in the market and known under the excise item weighbridge comes into being
The appellant will become a manufacturer of that product and as such liable to duty
That is precisely what the Tribunal found on the facts of the case
The appellant seems to have been obsessed by the idea that as a part of machine is liable to duty then the whole end product should not be dutiable as separate excise goods
That is mistake a part may be goods as known in the excise laws and may be goods as known in the excise laws and may be dutiable
The appellant in this case claims to have PG NO 4 manufactured only the indicator system
If the indicator system is a separate part and a duty had been paid on it and if the rules so provide then the appellant may be entitled to abatement under the rules
But if the end product is a separate product which comes into being as a result of the endeavour and activity of the appellant then the appellant must be held to have manufactured the said item
When parts and the end product are separately dutiable both are taxable
In that view of the matter the appellant s case that it is liable only for the component part and not the end product cannot be entertained
The Tribunal was therefore right in the view it took
These appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed
This order will not prejudice the rights of the appellant to claim if any abatement as indicated before according to the rules if the appellant is so entitled
RSS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Regulation 191 of the State Bank of Bikaner  Jaipur Officers  Service Regulations 1979 requires the officers to retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of fifty eight years or on completion of thirty years of service whichever occurs first
A note added below that regulation states that the existing practice of utilising the service of officers beyond 58 years will continue in respect of those who joined service before l9th July 1969
The proviso thereto however confers discretion on the competent authority to extend the period of service of such retiring officers in the interest of the bank
The respondent an officer of the said Bank who retired from service on September 30 1982 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years was not granted extension of service
The sought relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
The Bank resisted the Petition on the ground that his continued utility in the service of the Bank was found restricted By the time the petition came up for consideration the respondent had attained 60 years of age
The single Judge
therefore dismissed the petition without going into the merits
The Division Bench however accepted the appeal and gave relief to the respondent on the view that the extension of the petitioner could have been refused only if he was found unsuitable on the ground of continued utility or good health or integrity and not whether it was desirable in the interest of the Bank
Since the Bank applied a different criteria altogether it held the order arbitrary and based on collateral grounds
Allowing the appeal of the Bank by Special leave HELD 11 The High Court has misconstrued the legal right claimed by the respondent
1031B 12 In the scheme provided in Regulation 191 an officer of the Bank has a legitimate right to remain in PG NO 1026 PG NO 1027 service till he attains the age of superannuation
But beyond that age he has no such right unless his service is extended by the Bank
The further rights of parties are regulated by the proviso thereto
1031F G 13 The proviso preserves discretion to the Bank
It is a discretion available with every employer every management State or otherwise
If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is desirable in the interest of the Bank it may allow him to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation
If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is not required beyond superannuation it is an end of the matter
It is no reflection on the officer
It carries no stigma
1032C D State of Assam v Basanta Kumar Das 1973 3 SCR l58 Kailash Chandra vs Union of India 1962 I SCR 374 BN Mishra vs State 1965 l SCR 693 and State of Assam v Pramadhar 1971 l SCR 503referred to 2
The Bank however is required to consider the case of individual officers with due regard to i continued utility ii good health and iii integrity beyond reproach of the officer
If the officer lacks one or the other the bank is not bound to give him extension of service
11032D E In the instant case the Bank had shown to the High Court that the case of the respondent was considered and he did not fit in the said guidelines
The High Court does not sit in an appeal against that decision
The High Court under Article 226 cannot review that decision11032E