1987 (3) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether covering a metal conductor with paper or cotton or glass fiber makes it assessable to duty under Item 33-B of the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Whether the process of covering with cotton or glass fiber constitutes a manufacturing process.
3. Whether duty can be charged again on a product that has already paid duty once.
4. Whether the cross-sectional areas of the wires fall within the limits prescribed under Item 33-B(i) of the Tariff.
5. Whether the appeal should be rejected based on the above considerations.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around whether covering a metal conductor with paper, cotton, or glass fiber makes it assessable to duty under Item 33-B of the Central Excise Tariff. The department argues that such covering constitutes a manufacturing process and attracts duty again, citing relevant case laws and tariff provisions. On the other hand, the assessees contend that the goods do not become excisable again as the bare wires have already borne duty and remain conductors within the same Tariff Item.

2. The issue of whether the process of covering with cotton or glass fiber amounts to a manufacturing process is also debated. The department asserts that the process creates a new item, namely insulated wires of copper or aluminum, attracting duty under the Tariff. However, the assessees argue that no manufacturing occurs as the wires were already manufactured when bare and that the covering process does not change the essential character of the product.

3. A crucial aspect of the case is whether duty can be charged again on a product that has already paid duty once. The Assistant Collector's findings suggest that duty cannot be levied again on a product that remains within the same Tariff Item after undergoing a process like covering with cotton or fiber glass. The principle of not subjecting a product to duty twice under the same classification is emphasized.

4. The determination of whether the cross-sectional areas of the wires fall within the limits prescribed under Item 33-B(i) of the Tariff is significant. The argument centers on whether the wires covered and insulated by the assessees exceed the specified cross-sectional limits, thereby affecting their classification for duty assessment under the relevant sub-item.

5. Finally, based on the above considerations and analysis, the appellate tribunal rejects the appeal. The decision is based on the finding that the wires' cross-sectional areas do not fall within the limits set by the Tariff, rendering the department's assessment under Item 33-B(i) invalid. The rejection of the appeal is grounded in the understanding that the product, having already paid duty once, cannot be subjected to duty again under the same classification.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the core issues and arguments presented in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.