2004 (1) TMI 98 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of stainless steel wire made from stainless steel rods for excise duty.
2. Application of previous court decisions on similar cases.
3. Manufacturing process of stainless steel wire compared to mild steel wire.
4. Claim for refund of excise duty.
5. Interim relief and final disposal of the case.
6. Permission to pay excise duty on stainless steel wires.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the classification of stainless steel wire made from stainless steel rods for excise duty purposes. The petitioner argues that the process of manufacturing stainless steel wire is materially different from that of mild steel wire, citing previous court decisions to support their claim. They emphasize the distinct character, use, and name of the stainless steel wire, which is commercially known as a different product. The petitioner also highlights the decision in Krishna Wire Industries' case, where the manufacturing of stainless steel wire from stainless steel rods was considered a manufacturing process by a Special Bench of the CEGAT at New Delhi.

2. The judgment delves into the application of previous court decisions on similar cases to the current scenario. It references the decision of the Apex Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Technoweld Industries, emphasizing that the said decision was specific to mild steel rods/bars and mild steel wires, not stainless steel. Additionally, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which defines manufacturing as the transformation of a matter into something else, commercially known differently.

3. The comparison between the manufacturing process of stainless steel wire and mild steel wire is a crucial aspect of the judgment. The petitioner argues that the process of drawing mild steel wire from mild steel rod is different from the complex process involved in making stainless steel wire from stainless steel hot rolled black wire rods. They highlight the number of processes involved in the latter, indicating a significant distinction in the manufacturing processes of the two types of wires.

4. The issue of a claim for refund of excise duty is addressed in the judgment, where the petitioner states that if the petitioner-company fails ultimately, they will not claim a refund of the excise duty paid if the court grants ad-interim/interim relief. This aspect showcases the petitioner's willingness to comply with the court's decision regarding the payment of excise duty.

5. The judgment also discusses interim relief and the final disposal of the case. The court sets a date for final disposal and instructs the respondents to permit the petitioners to pay the excise duty on stainless steel wires manufactured from stainless steel hot rolled black wire rods until the final disposal of the case. This provision ensures that the petitioners can continue their operations without undue hindrance.

6. Lastly, the judgment grants permission for the petitioners to pay the excise duty on stainless steel wires, with all other consequential benefits and liabilities, in accordance with the rules. It clarifies that the pendency of the petition does not prevent the Central Board of Excise and Customs from considering the distinction between drawing wires from mild steel rods and making stainless steel wires from stainless steel rods, as argued by the petitioners. The respondent from the Central Government waives service of notice, and direct service is permitted on other respondents involved in the case.