P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

INAMULLAH, J.‑The petitioner Muhammad Aqil is carrying on the business of dyeing and glazing tanned leather. The respondent No. 1 is the Government of Pakistan while the respondents 2 and 3 are the Collector and Assistant Collector of Excise and Land Customs respectively. The facts shortly put giving rise to the present petition are these: On 1st March 1958 an Inspector of Central Excise and Land Cusmtoms came to the premises of the petitioner and ordered the petitioner not to dispose of 620 pieces of tanned leather. On 27th March 1958 another Inspector of the Central Excise and Land Customs Department ordered the petitioner not to dye or glaze leather. He also called upon him to pay excise duty on the 620 pieces of tanned leather. The petitioner protested against this action of the Inspector by his letter dated the 31st March 1958. He submitted to respondent No. 2 that he was not liable to pay any Excise duty. On the 31st July, 1958 an Inspector of the respondents wrote a letter to the petitioner calling upon him to take a license under rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the tanned leather glazed and dyed by him was liable to excise duty. On these facts the petitioner prayed that the respondents may be ordered not to interfere with the business and trade of the petitioner. The respondents' case is disclosed in the counter‑affidavit filed by Mr. Hassan Zahid Bokhari, Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi. It is contended by the respondents that tanned leather is brought to the factory of the petitioner. The petitioner dyes the leather so brought and puts it under a machine for glazing. The petitioner uses power for his machine. This process, it is contended, employed by the petitioner, is a step in the production of tanned leather and the process is incidental and ancillary to such production. The petitioner therefore is liable to excise duty. The only contention that Mr. Muzaffar Hassan raised before us was that the leather which goes through the process of dyeing and glazing in his factory is not liable to excise duty. 1n order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Muzaffar Hassan certain provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 require consideration. The taxing section is section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. For the purposes of this case I would reproduce only sub‑clause (1) of section 3 of the Act which runs as under: "3.‑(1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in the Provinces and the Capital of the Federation and a duty on salt manufactured in, or imported by land into, any part of the Provinces and the Capital of the Federation as, and at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule." "Excisable goods" is defined under section 2 (d) of the Act and means goods specified in the First Schedule as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt. The first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was amended by the Finance Act, XXII of 1958. With the amendment of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 certain new items were added. The relevant item is item No. 23 which runs as under: "23 Description Rate of duty Tanned leather produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production of leather

(i) Uppers including all varieties of tanned leather made from goat skin, sheepskin and the skins of any other animal generally used in the manufacture of uppers, or lining of footwear, and for other leather goods. One anna per per square foot. (ii) "Soles" including leather from cow hide, buffaloe hide and the hides of other animals generally used in the manufacture of soles for footwear, and for other leather goods. One anna six pies per pound. The short contention of Mr. Muzaffar Hussan was that the petitioner does not produce tanned leather in his factory. He receives tanned leather from various persons and all that he does is to dye and glaze it. It is conceded that the peti tioner uses power in the process of dyeing and glazing the tanned leather. There is great force in the contention of the learned Advocate. It is only tanned leather, as provided under item 23 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, which can be taxed. In this connection it would be useful to reproduce para. 2 of the affidavit of Mr. Bokhari, Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs. It runs as under: " Leather which is brought to the factory of the petitioner is one which is tanned by pit or by bag curing by manual labour. The petitioner then dyes it by use of Chemicals and puts it in the glazing machine, which he has installed in his factory where he uses power. The leather which passes through this process in the factory of the petitioner becomes a finished product." It would appear from the above that the leather that the petitioner receives is already tanned. Under Schedule I of the Central Excises and Salt Act, duty has to be paid on tanned leather and not on "finished product". It may be that tanned ‑leather by undergoing the process of dyeing and glazing under a machine becomes more valuable. But all the same it remains tanned leather. Mr. Faruqi, the learned advocate for the respondents, relied on the definition of 'manufacture' as given under section 2 (f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It runs as under: "Manufacture" includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product." On this definition; he strenously contended that the process of dyeing and glazing is incidental to the completion of tanned leather. There is not much force in this contention. In the first place, item 23 to the First Schedule of the Excise Act does not require the consideration of the meaning of manufacture., The word used under item 23 is 'produced' and not 'manufactured' I. In the second place, even if the word 'manufactured' were used in item 23 to the First Schedule of the Act, the process of dyeing and glazing cannot be said to be incidental "to the i completion of" tanned leather. Dyeing and glazing does not, in any way add to the completion of tanned leather. This process of dyeing and glazing is quite independent. Admittedly, tanned leather can be put to use without undergoing the process of dyeing and glazing. Mr. Faruqi, the learned advocate for the petitioner, relied on the minority view in the case of McNeicol and another v. Pinch ((1906) 2 K B 352). The learned Judges in this case con sidered the scope of the word 'manufacture': This case has no relevancy to the facts of the present case. It seems that the Act which the learned Judges were considering did not give any definition of 'manufacture'. So far as the Central Excise Act is concerned, the definition of ' manufacture ' is there. More over, as I have already said, the point before us does not require the consideration of the meaning of the word 'manufacture.' On the facts admitted by Mr. Bokhari that the plaintiff receives tanned leather in his factory, the process of dyeing and glazing by the petitioner would not attract the provision of the Central Excises and Salt Act. I would, for the reasons given above, order the respondents not to levy any excise duty on the tanned leather which the petitioner subjects to dyeing and glazing. The respondents to pay the cost of the petition to the petitioner. KAYANI, C. J.‑I agree. A.H. Petition accepted.