2000 (8) TMI 427 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of Appeal No. E/44/96-B dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. Availment of benefit of Notification No. 69/86 dated 10-2-1986.
3. Disallowance of exemption on the ground of wire diameter for manufacturing super enamelled copper winding wire.

Analysis:

1. Restoration of Appeal:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the application for restoration of Appeal No. E/44/96-B, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Advocate for the Appellant argued that the issue involved the benefit of Notification No. 69/86 dated 10-2-1986. The Appellant had been diligently pursuing the matter, as evidenced by their presence in related hearings. The Tribunal accepted the plea that the Appellant was interested in pursuing the appeal, allowed the application, and restored the appeal to its original number for further hearing.

2. Availment of Benefit of Notification No. 69/86:
The Appellant's appeal involved the availment of the benefit under Notification No. 69/86 dated 10-2-1986. The Commissioner, Indore, had passed Adjudication Orders dropping proceedings of denying the exemption under this notification. The Revenue had filed appeals against these Orders. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant's case was fixed for a hearing on 7-3-2000 without notice to them. However, the Tribunal had already upheld the Commissioner's Orders and rejected all appeals by the Revenue regarding the same issue. The Tribunal acknowledged the Appellant's interest in pursuing the matter and restored the appeal for further consideration.

3. Disallowance of Exemption - Wire Diameter Issue:
The Appellant purchased copper wire rod, wire bars, or wire exceeding 6 mm in cross-sectional dimension for manufacturing super enamelled copper winding wire. The Collector (Appeals) disallowed the exemption, citing that winding wires were drawn from wires less than 6 mm, contrary to the notification's condition. The Tribunal, in a previous order dated 31-7-2000, clarified that the technical process of reducing wire dimensions did not disqualify the Appellant from the exemption. As long as the winding wires were made from bars or rods exceeding 6 mm in cross-sectional dimension, any intermediate products during the manufacturing process did not affect their eligibility. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the present appeal and set aside the Collector's decision.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal addressed the restoration of the dismissed appeal, the issue of availing benefits under Notification No. 69/86, and the disallowance of exemption based on wire diameter for manufacturing super enamelled copper winding wire. The Tribunal's decisions were based on careful consideration of the arguments presented and relevant legal precedents.