2005 (4) TMI 329 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty for two parties.
2. Whether the process of making copper wire rods amounts to manufacture.
3. Applicability of the extended period for demanding duty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty by M/s. Kaycee Electricals and M/s. Vimla Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. The advocate for the appellants argued that the process of making copper wire rods from copper wire bars did not amount to manufacture, citing relevant legal precedents. He also contended that duty beyond the normal period of limitation was not demandable due to the classification list filings and prevailing trade practices. The advocate highlighted that the duty payable within the normal time limit was significantly lower for both applicants.

2. The Departmental Representative opposed the prayer for waiver, reiterating the findings in the impugned order. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides. While acknowledging the legal precedent cited by the advocate, the Tribunal noted that the previous decision was related to Octroi and the definition of manufacture under different rules. The Tribunal found no prima facie case for applying the ratio of the earlier decision to the present matters. However, the Tribunal recognized a strong prima facie case regarding the non-invocability of the extended period for demanding duty. Consequently, the Tribunal directed M/s. Kaycee Electricals to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs and M/s. Vimla Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within six weeks. Upon depositing these amounts, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty would be waived, and the recovery of the same would be stayed during the pendency of the appeals.

3. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of the specific facts and legal context of each case in determining the applicability of legal precedents. While recognizing the arguments presented by the advocate, the Tribunal carefully assessed the grounds for invoking the extended period for demanding duty. The judgment emphasized the need for a strong prima facie case to support the waiver of pre-deposit and the stay on recovery during the appeal process. The matter was scheduled for compliance reporting on a specified date, ensuring procedural clarity and monitoring of the case progress.