2017 (11) TMI 768 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - whether the activity of appellant is same as of Ankleshwar Unit - Held that - the activity of Ankleshwar Unit and the appellants unit are the same such as purchase of short length of bare copper wire enameling the said wire with their final product i.e., varnish. If this be so, then the Tribunal s order passed in respect of Ankleshwar Unit is squarely applicable, as per the direction given by this Tribunal in the first round of appeal - Since the matter has already been considered by this Tribunal and passed the remand order with specific direction, no other issues can be raised by either side, therefore the adjudication order which has gone on all other aspects and various judgements cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Manufacture of excisable goods without maintaining statutory records and charging appropriate duty.

Analysis:
The appellants were found manufacturing enameled/insulated copper wire without maintaining records or paying duty. A show-cause notice led to a demand of &8377;7,51,497/- and a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially allowed the appeal, but the Revenue challenged it. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority, which confirmed the duty demand. The appellant appealed this decision.

Analysis:
The appellant's counsel argued that the issue was settled for their Ankleshwar unit in a previous Tribunal order. They contended that the adjudicating authority overstepped by considering additional grounds beyond the Tribunal's direction. The appellant claimed the activity was for quality testing only and not liable for duty. They cited various judgments to support their argument.

Analysis:
The Revenue argued that the process of enameling copper wire constituted manufacture, as the enameled wire was classifiable under a different chapter. Both the adjudicating authority and appellate authority upheld this view.

Analysis:
The Tribunal reviewed past orders related to the Ankleshwar unit. It noted that a previous order favored the appellants due to the creation of a distinct marketable item. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority should have followed the Tribunal's direction and not delved into other aspects.

Analysis:
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the denovo adjudication process. The adjudicating authority had strayed from the Tribunal's specific direction and considered various other aspects. As the Tribunal's order on the Ankleshwar unit had finality, the adjudicating authority was bound by it. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.

This judgment highlights the importance of following Tribunal directions and limiting adjudication to the issues specified. It also underscores the significance of precedent and the binding nature of past decisions on similar matters.