1981 (9) TMI 287 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of aluminium wire rods as excisable items under Tariff Item 27(a) (ii) of Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the classification of aluminium wire rods manufactured from wire bars under the Central Excise Tariff. The Applicants argued that these rods should not be treated as excisable items under Tariff Item 27(a) (ii) as they are intermediate products. They contended that the wire rods they manufacture are Hot Rolled Rods obtained by Hot Rolling of Wire bars and are not liable to excise duty. They claimed that the term "Wire Rods" in the Tariff refers only to Properzi Rods made by the continuous casting process, not to Hot Rolled Rods. They presented a certificate from the Non-Ferrous Metal Merchants' Association supporting their argument that Aluminium Rods produced by rolling from pre-heated wire bars are known as "Hot Rolled Rods."

The Government, however, noted that Tariff Item 27 of the Central Excise Tariff includes wire bars, wire rods, and castings as distinct products. They determined that the manufacture of wire rods from wire bars falls within the definition of manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Government clarified that the term "Wire Rods" in the Tariff is not limited by any specific manufacturing process. They emphasized that in trade, both "Hot Rolled Rods" and "Cast Wire Rods of Properzi Rods" are used for drawing wires, indicating that the Tariff encompasses various types of wire rods, not just those manufactured by the Properzi method. Consequently, the Government rejected the revision application, affirming that the classification of the aluminium wire rods under Tariff Item 27(a) (ii) as excisable items is appropriate.

In a previous related case, the Government had already held that aluminium wire rods, regardless of their production method, should be classified under Tariff Item 27(a) (ii). The Government applied the same rationale from the earlier decision to the present case, reinforcing their stance on the classification of aluminium wire rods. Despite the Applicants' arguments and the certificate provided, the Government maintained that the classification of wire rods under the Central Excise Tariff is not limited to specific manufacturing processes but encompasses various types of wire rods used in the industry. Therefore, the revision application was rejected based on the Government's interpretation of the Tariff provisions and their previous decision on a similar matter.