{"id":250262,"date":"1990-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990"},"modified":"2016-10-01T07:47:49","modified_gmt":"2016-10-01T02:17:49","slug":"bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Forge & Press Industries … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 16 January, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bharat Forge & Press Industries … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 16 January, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 616, 1990 SCR (1)\t 60<\/div>\n
Author: S Rangnathan<\/div>\n
Bench: Rangnathan, S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBHARAT FORGE & PRESS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA, GUJARAT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/01\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nOJHA, N.D. (J)\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  616\t\t  1990 SCR  (1)\t 60\n 1990 SCC  (1) 532\t  JT 1990 (1)\t 34\n 1990 SCALE  (1)30\n\n\nACT:\n    Central   Excises  and  Salt Act<\/a>,  1944: First  Schedule\nItem 26AA (iv)--'Pipe fittings'--Levy of excise duty--Wheth-\ner  could  be classified as 'pipes and\ttubes  '--Whether  a\ndifferent commercial commodity.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Steel  pipes and tubes (including blanks therefore)\t all\nsorts, whether rolled, forged, spun, cast, drawn,  annealed,\nwelded or extruded were dutiable under Item 26AA(iv) of\t the\nFirst  Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt\t Act<\/a>,  1944.\nThe Department, however, sought to classify 'pipe  fittings'\nsuch  as  elbows, bends and reducers,  manufactured  by\t the\nappellants,  from out of the steel pipes purchased from\t the\nopen  market on payment of excise duty, under Item 68  which\nwas a residuary entry, on the ground that they were known in\nthe market differently as pipe fittings, a totally different\ncommercial commodity. The appellants' claim that the process\nundertaken  by\tthem did not amount to\tmanufacture  as\t the\nproducts  turned out were nothing but pipes and\t tubes,\t and\nthat they were being virtually asked to pay duty twice\tover\non the same product, was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal.\nAllowing the appeal under s. 35L(B)<\/a> of the Act, the Court,\n    HELD: 1. Unless the Department could establish that\t the\ngoods in question could by no conceivable process of reason-\ning  be brought under any of the tariff items, resort  could\nnot be had to the residuary item. This has not been done  in\nthe instant case. [62F]\n    2.1\t The use of the words 'all sorts of' and the  refer-\nence  to the various processes by which the excisable  items\ncould be manufactured set out in Entry 26AA(iv) are  compre-\nhensive\t enough to encompass all sorts of pipes\t and  tubes.\n[64F]\n    2.2\t The expression \"pipe fittings\" merely denotes\tthat\nit is a pipe or tube of a particular length, size or  shape.\nPipe  fittings do not cease to be pipes and tubes; they\t are\nonly a species thereof. In order to achieve\n61\nfully the purpose for which the pipes and tubes are manufac-\ntured,\tit  is necessary to manufacture\t smaller  pieces  of\npipes and tubes and also to manufacture them in such a shape\nthat they may be able to conduct liquids and gases,  passing\nthem through and across angles, turnings, corners and curves\nor  regulating\ttheir flow in the manner required.  This  is\ndone  by a process of forging, welding, hammering and so  on\napplied\t to  the longer tubes. There is no change  in  their\nbasic  physical properties and there is no change  in  their\nend use. They are merely intended as accessories or  supple-\nments  to the larger pipes and tubes. It could\tnot,  there-\nfore,  be  said that pipe fittings, though they may  have  a\ndistinctive  name or badge of identification in the  market,\nwere not pipes and tubes. [63B-C, 62G-63A, 64E]\n    Indian  Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India &  Ors<\/a>.,\n[1985] 3 S.C.C. 284, referred to.\n    3.\tNo doubt \"tubes and pipes\" and \"pipe fittings\"\tfall\nunder different sub-items under the Harmonised Code as\twell\nas under the Customs Cooperative Council Nomenclature  where\ntwo expressions are used in contrast and the sub-classifica-\ntion is more detailed. That dichotomy could not be  imported\ninto the instant case where there was only one comprehensive\nand generic entry. [65B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1057  of
\n1987.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the Order dated 29.12.1986 of the  Customs  Excise
\nand  Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in  Appeal
\nNo. ED\/SB\/ 7 A No. 186\/82-BI in Order No. 826\/86-BI.
\n    D.N.  Mehta,  R.C. Misra and Dr. Meera Agarwal  for\t the
\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
V.C. Mahajan and R.P. Srivastava for the Respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     RANGANATHAN,  J.  Item 26AA(iv) of the  Central  Excise
\nTariff reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Pipes\tand  tubes (including blanks therefore)\t all  sorts,
\nwhether rolled, forged, spun, cast, drawn, annealed,  welded
\nor extruded”\n<\/p>\n
62<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t appellants are engaged in the manufacture  of\tpipe
\nfittings  such as elbows, bends and reducers. They  purchase
\nsteel  pipes on payment of excise duty prom indigenous\tpro-
\nducers from the open market and they also get steel tubes by
\nway  of import. The appellants cut the pipes and tubes\tinto
\ndifferent  sizes,  give them shape and turn them  into\tpipe
\nfittings  in their factories by heating in a furnace  (at  a
\ntemperature between 66 degrees C and 900 degrees C)  hammer-
\ning  and  pressing.  The short question in  this  appeal  is
\nwhether\t the  pipe fittings so produced by  the\t petitioners
\nalso  fall  under Item 26AA(iv) or whether  they  should  be
\nclassified  under  tariff  item 68 which  is  the  residuary
\nentry.\n<\/p>\n
    The case of the appellants is that the products manufac-
\ntured by them are also nothing but pipes and tubes and\tthat
\nthey are being virtually asked to pay duty twice over on the
\nsame product. According to them the processes undertaken  by
\nthem  do  not amount to manufacture and no new\tproduct\t has
\ncome into existence as a result of the processes employed in
\ntheir  factories. They say that the pipes and  tubes  retain
\ntheir  material and original character and use and they\t can
\nalso  be had only from dealers dealing in pipes\t and  tubes.
\nThis  claim of the appellants has not been accepted  by\t the
\nCentral Customs Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal and hence
\nthe  present  appeal  under section 35L(b)<\/a>  of\tthe  Central
\nExcises and Salt Act<\/a>, 1944.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question  before us is whether\t the  Department  is
\nright  in claiming that the items in question  are  dutiable
\nunder tariff entry No. 68 This, as mentioned already, is the
\nresiduary  entry  and only such goods as cannot\t be  brought
\nunder  the various specific entries in the tariff should  be
\nattempted to be brought under the residuary entry. In  other
\nwords, unless the department can establish that the goods in
\nquestion  can  by  no conceivable process  of  reasoning  be
\nbrought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be\t had
\nto  the residuary item. We do not think this has been  done.
\nLooking at Tariff item 26AA(iv), it encompasses all sorts of
\npipes  and tubes. It is also clear that it is of  no  conse-
\nquence\twhether\t the  pipes and tubes  are  manufactured  by
\nrolling,  forging,  spinning, casting,\tdrawing,  annealing,
\nwelding\t or extruding. It is true that initially  pipes\t and
\ntubes  may be obtained from sheets, billets or bars by\tvar-
\nious processes, but the process of manufacture of pipes\t and
\ntubes  does  not end there. In order to\t achieve  fully\t the
\npurpose\t for which the pipes and tubes are manufactured,  it
\nis  necessary  to manufacture smaller pieces  of  pipes\t and
\ntubes and also to manufacture them in such a shape that they
\nmay  be\t able  to conduct liquids and  gases,  passing\tthem
\nthrough and across angles, turnings,
\n63<\/span>
\ncorners\t and curves or regulating their flow in\t the  manner
\nrequired.  Smaller  pieces of pipes  and  tubes\t differently
\nshaped\tare manufactured for this purpose. They\t are  merely
\nintended  as accessories or supplements to the larger  pipes
\nand  tubes. They are pipes and tubes made out of  pipes\t and
\ntubes. There is no change in their basic physical properties
\nand there is no change in their end use. There is no  reason
\nwhy these smaller articles cannot also be described as pipes
\nand tubes.\n<\/p>\n
    But, it is said, they are known in the market different-
\nly as pipe fittings, a totally different commercial commodi-
\nty. The expression “pipe fittings” merely denotes that it is
\na pipe or tube of a particular length, size or shape.  “Pipe
\nfittings” do not cease to be pipes and tubes; they are\tonly
\na  species thereof. This aspect of the matter can be  illus-
\ntrated\tby  the decision of this Court in  Indian  Aluminium
\nCables\tLtd. v. Union of India and others<\/a>, [1985]  3  S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n
284.  In that case the question was whether “Properzi  Rods”
\nmanufactured  and cleared by the assessee fell within  Entry
\n27(a)(ii)  of the First Schedule to the Central Excises\t and
\nSalt Act<\/a>, I of 1944. That entry read as follows:
\nAluminium\n<\/p>\n
(a) wire bars, wire rods and castings, not otherwise  speci-
\nfied.\n<\/p>\n
It  was contended, on behalf of the appellant,\tinter  alia,
\nthat, commercially, Properzi Rods are not known as wire rods
\nin the trade and that a person wanting to purchase  Properzi
\nRods  asks specifically for Properzi Rods and not  for\twire
\nrods.  Reliance\t was also placed on the view taken  by\tthis
\nCourt that words and expressions describing an article in  a
\ntariff\tschedule should be construed in the sense  in  which
\nthey  are  understood  in the trade by the  dealer  and\t the
\nconsumer.  The\tCourt held that Properzi Rods  were  only  a
\nspecies of wire rods. It pointed out:\n<\/p>\n
“To sum up the true position, the process of manufacture  of
\na product and the end use to which it is put, cannot  neces-
\nsarily\tbe  determinative  of  the  classification  of\tthat
\nproduct\t under\ta fiscal schedule like\tthe  Central  Excise
\nTariff. What is more important is whether the broad descrip-
\ntion of the article fits in with the expression used in\t the
\nTariff.\t The  aluminium wire rods, whether obtained  by\t the
\nextrusion  process, the conventional process or by  Properzi
\nprocess,, are still aluminium wire rods. The process of
\n64<\/span>
\nmanufacture  is\t bound to undergo  transformation  with\t the
\nadvancement in science and technology. The name of the\tend-
\nproduct\t may,  by  reason of  new  technological  processes,
\nchange but, the basic nature and quality of the article\t may
\nstill  answer  the  same description. On the  basis  of\t the
\nmaterial before us, it is not possible to record a  positive
\nfinding\t that  Properzi Rods and wire rods  are\t treated  as
\ndistinct  items\t in commercial parlance. Properzi Rod  is  a
\nwire  rod subjected to the Properzi process and is used\t for
\ntransmission of high voltage electric current.”
\nThe  position  is somewhat similar in the present  case.  As
\nexplained above, the goods described in the tariff,  namely,
\npipes  and tubes are designed to meet various types  of\t re-
\nquirements.  Normally pipes and tubes are produced  as\tlong
\nand  straight pieces. But by themselves they  cannot  fulfil
\nall the needs or the end use for which they are intended. To
\nget the maximum use out of the pipes and tubes, it is neces-
\nsary  not only to produce long and straight pipes and  tubes
\nbut  also to turn out pipes and tubes of smaller  dimensions
\nand  of different shapes and curves such as  bends,  elbows,
\n‘T’  pieces, ‘Y’ pieces, plugs, caps, flanges,\tjoints,\t un-
\nions, collars and so on. This is done by a process of  forg-
\ning,  welding,\thammering and so on applied  to\t the  longer
\ntubes  but basically the items remain the same and  the\t use
\nalso  remains the same. The tariff entry calls for  no\tdis-
\ntinction between pipes and tubes manufactured out of sheets,
\nrods,  bars,  plates or billets and those  turned  out\tfrom
\nlarger pipes and tubes. In these circumstances it is  diffi-
\ncult  to  say  that pipe fittings, though they\tmay  have  a
\ndistinctive  name or badge of identification in the  market,
\nare not pipes and tubes. It is true that all pipes and tubes
\ncannot\tbe described as pipe fittings. But it would  not  be
\ncorrect\t to say that pipe fittings are not pipes and  tubes.
\nThey  are only a species of pipes and tubes. The use of\t the
\nwords “all sorts” and the reference to the various processes
\nby which the excisable item could be manufactured set out in
\nthe  tariff entry are comprehensive enough to  sweep  within
\ntheir fold the goods presently under consideration.
\n    A certain amount of reliance has been placed on  entries
\nin the Harmonised Code as well as in the Customs Cooperative
\nCouncil\t Nomenclature  (CCCN). We do not  think\t that  these
\nentries\t and specifications are very helpful. The CCCN\tcon-
\ntains  a  number of entries in Section XV,  namely,  heading
\nNos. 73.17 to 73.20. While heading Nos. 73.17 to 73.19\ttalk
\nof  pipes, tubes and conduits, heading No. 73.20  speaks  of
\n“tube and pipe fittings (for example, joints, elbows, unions
\n65<\/span>
\nand flanges) of iron and steel”. Section XVI also deals with
\nsome types of pipes and tubes. The position is similar under
\nthe  Harmonised\t Code. In Section XV, there  is\t an  equally
\nmeticulous sub-division. Heading Nos. 73.02 to 06 deal\twith
\nvarious\t types\tof  pipes  and\ttubes.\tThen  comes  heading
\nNo.73.07 which specifically talks of “tube or pipe  fittings
\n(for example, couplings, elbows, sleeves) of iron and  steel
\n(including stainless steel)” and proceeds to set out various
\nsubdivisions  of  these\t items one of which  is\t (7307.23  &
\n7307.93) “butt welding fittings” which is the item of  manu-
\nfacture\t in  the present case. It is true  that\t “tubes\t and
\npipes”\tand  “pipe fittings” fall under\t different  subitems
\nunder the above Codes where the two expressions are used  in
\ncontrast  and the sub-classification is more detailed.\tThat
\ndichotomy cannot be imported into the present context  where
\nthere  is only one comprehensive and generic entry. We\tcan-
\nnot, therefore, derive any assistance from those entries.
\n    For\t the  above reasons we are of the opinion  that\t the
\nview  taken  by\t the Tribunal is not correct  and  that\t the
\nassessee’s contention that the goods in question fall  under
\nitem  26AA(iv) should be accepted. We, therefore, set  aside
\nthe order of the Tribunal and direct the modification of the
\nassessments  accordingly. In the circumstances, however,  we
\nmake no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n66<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bharat Forge & Press Industries … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 16 January, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 616, 1990 SCR (1) 60 Author: S Rangnathan Bench: Rangnathan, S. PETITIONER: BHARAT FORGE & PRESS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA, GUJARAT DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/01\/1990 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-250262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBharat Forge & Press Industries ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 16 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat Forge & Press Industries ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 16 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-01T02:17:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat Forge & Press Industries … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 16 January, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T02:17:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990\"},\"wordCount\":1705,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990\",\"name\":\"Bharat Forge & Press Industries ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 16 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T02:17:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat Forge & Press Industries … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 16 January, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bharat Forge & Press Industries ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 16 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat Forge & Press Industries ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 16 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-01T02:17:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat Forge & Press Industries … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 16 January, 1990","datePublished":"1990-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T02:17:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990"},"wordCount":1705,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990","name":"Bharat Forge & Press Industries ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 16 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T02:17:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-press-industries-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-16-january-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat Forge & Press Industries … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 16 January, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250262","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250262\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}