P.K. Bahri, J.

1. In this petition the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated July 21, 1971, passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated January 5, 1972, passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated January 30, 1974, passed by respondent No. 4, by which the petitioner has not been allowed exemption from the payment of excise duty on the goods manufactured by the petitioner.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of rubber goods including certain types of rubber tubing and rubber sleeving popularly known in the trade by the name of Neoprene Rubber Tubing and Neoprene Rubber Sleeving. According to the petitioner, these tubes also are known as capillary tubing. The petitioner is stated to be supplying this rubber tubing to the Indian Explosives Limited. Gomia (M.P.) and these components are used mainly in the manufacture of detonators. It was pleaded that these rubber tubing are not used for conveying air, gas or liquids but are exclusively used as component parts of detonators. The detonators admittedly are used for exploding purposes. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India, had issued notification No. 197/ 677-C.E. dated August 29, 1961, exempting from payment the whole of the excise duty on the piping and tubing designed to be or converted in the factory of manufacture into component parts of machinery articles provided such component parts do not perform the function of conveying air, gas or liquids. A copy of the notification has been filed as annexure P1.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid components i.e. rubber tubing and rubber sleeving are fully covered by this notification and the petitioner should have been granted exemption from payment of excise duty on the manufacture of the said components. The petitioner made a representation to the Superintendent, Central Excise, but the same was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise vide order dated July 21, 1971 (copy annexure P3). He filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, but the appeal came to be also rejected on January 5, 1972 (copy annexure P5). One of the pleas taken by the petitioner was that similarly manufactured rubber tubes by another manufacturer, namely, M/s. Basant Rubber Factory (P) Limited, Bombay, had been granted exemption from payment of duty on the basis of the aforesaid notification. A revision petition filed by the petitioner to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India also came to be rejected vide order dated January 30, 1974 (copy annexure P-9) The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders pleading that the petitioners products are clearly covered by the aforesaid notification and the respondents were not right in declining the exemption from payment of duty on the said products to the petitioner. It was also pleaded that the orders of the respondents suffer from the vice of discrimination inasmuch as similar products of M/s. Basant Rubber Factory (P) Limited have been allowed exemption from payment of duty under the aforesaid notification.

4. The counter has been filed on behalf of the respondent in the shape of affidavit of Mr. H.S. Verma, Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division. It was mentioned in this affidavit that earlier the petitioner itself was showing these products in the list meant for imposing the necessary duty and the petitioner voluntarily was paying necessary duty on the said products. It was pleaded that on May 13, 1971, revised lists were filed by the petitioner claiming exemption from payment of duty in respect of rubber tubes. It was mentioned in the affidavit that the respondents were not aware whether the products of the petitioner are exclusively purchased and consumed by the Indian Explosives Limited and they are mainly used by them in the manufacture of detonators. It was also denied for want of knowledge whether these products are not used for conveying air, gas or liquids. It was denied in the affidavit that the case of M/s. Basant Rubber Factory Pvt. Ltd. was similar to the case of the petitioner. It was pleaded that the said Neoprene Sleevings and Neoprene Tubings are, no doubt, used in making the detonators but the detonator is not covered by the definition of machinery. Hence, the exemption from payment of duty is not admissible to the said products.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but unfortunately no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. So, I did not have the advantage of hearing arguments of behalf of the respondents.

6. The only ground on which the claim of the petitioner was negatived was that the detonators in which the products of the petitioner are used are not covered by the definition of machinery. The word machine as defined in the New Websters Dictionary of the English Language is as follows:

contrivance, an apparatus, a mechanical apparatus or contrivance, something operated by a mechanical apparatus

and the machinery has been denned as:

any collection or functioning unit of machines or mechanical apparatus; the parts of a machine, collectively; any combination or system of agencies by which action is maintained.

The detonator is defined as follows:

a device that explodes, used for causing another substance to explode.

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary the word detonator is defined to mean detonating contrivance and the word machine is defined to mean apparatus for applying mechanical power, having several parts each with definite function, instrument that transmits force or directs its application. The word machinery is defined to mean machines, work of a machine, mechanism contrivances. So the plain meanings of the aforesaid words make it clear that the detonator which is a contrivance for causing explosion of other substance can be called a machinery. No reasons have been given either in the impugned orders or in the affidavit of Sh. H.S. Verma as to why a detonator is not being treated as a machine. In my opinion, there can be no doubt in the mind of any rational being if the definition of the said words are taken into account that the detonator is a machinery and the products of the petitioner which are admittedly used in the manufacture of the detonators are clearly covered by the aforesaid notification entitling the petitioner for exemption from payment of excise duty on the said products.

7. There is clear averment in the petition that the products of M/s. Basant Rubber Factory Pvt. Ltd. are similar to the products of the petitioner and the products of the said company are also used in the manufacture of detonators by M/s. Indian Explosives Limited, but there has been no specific denial of these averments. There is only a bare and bald assertion that the products of the said company are called capillary tubing and those are not similar to the products of the petitioner. Without elaborating as to how and in what manner those products are not similar, By giving a same or similar product a different name, the nature of the product does not change. At any rate, the clear meanings of the words machinery and detonator make it obvious that the products being manufactured by the petitioner-company are entitled to have exemption from payment of excise duty on the basis of the aforesaid notification. I, hence, allow the petition, make the rule absolute and quash the impugned orders with the direction that the respondents should allow exemption from payment of duty on the said products of the petitioner-company on the basis of the aforesaid notification.