|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 420 Records
-
1997 (8) TMI 289
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras determined whether the appellant is entitled to benefit under Rule 57Q for boilers used in manufacturing steel for liquid glucose. The appellant argued that the process is integrally connected to liquid glucose production. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating the boiler is used for the ultimate production of liquid glucose.
-
1997 (8) TMI 288
The appeal relates to the benefit of Notification No. 73/90 for a "line tester" in a telephone exchange. The Tribunal held that the line tester is not part of the telephone exchange. The matter is remanded for further consideration based on technical aspects. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for remand.
-
1997 (8) TMI 287
Issues:
Classification of Tacho Generator and parts thereof under different tariff headings.
Analysis:
The appeal concerns the classification of Tacho Generator and its parts. The lower appellate authority classified the goods under Heading 90.29 for Tacho Generator and 90.33 for its parts, while the Revenue sought classification under Heading 85.01 for Tacho Generator and 85.03 for its parts, which cover electric generators. The main issue is whether the Tacho Generator, which generates electrical impulses corresponding to mechanical energy, should be classified as a generator under Heading 85.01 or under Tariff Heading 9029.00. The assessment of parts depends on the classification of the main equipment, the Tacho Generator.
The Department argued that the Tacho Generator has multiple uses and can be used with various equipment, suggesting that the classification should be based on the equipment it is used with. They contended that the lower appellate authority did not consider the multiple uses of the Tacho Generator and failed to refer to relevant chapter notes and HSN notes. The Chartered Accountant for the respondent argued that the Tacho Generator would be used for controlling eddy current drives falling under Heading 85.01, supporting the lower appellate authority's decision.
Upon considering both arguments, it was observed that the Tacho Generator is a multipurpose equipment used as part of control mechanisms for various applications. For classification under Heading 90.29 and 90.33, it must either fall within the description of these headings or be classified as per chapter notes. In this case, it needs to be used as an accessory with other equipment for the control mechanism to function. If used with equipment under Heading 90.29, it can be classified accordingly. However, since the lower appellate authority did not delve into whether the Tacho Generator is used with equipment under Heading 85.01, it was deemed appropriate to remand the matter for further consideration. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CCE(A) for a fresh assessment based on the observations made. The appeal was allowed by remand.
-
1997 (8) TMI 286
The appeal was regarding Modvat credit for refractory bricks used in lining furnaces. The benefit was allowed from 1-3-1994 under Rule 57Q. The appellants argued for credit based on a judgment regarding ramming mass. The tribunal ruled that refractory bricks are part of the structure and do not qualify as inputs under Rule 57A. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 285
Issues:
Demand of duty based on alleged shortages in aerated water production. Discrepancies between Sales Manager's Report (SMR) and RG 1 figures. Allegations of clandestine removal of bottles. Failure to correlate use of flavors and concentrates with production. Lack of evidence on excess purchases of essences and bottles.
Analysis:
The appeal concerns a dispute over duty demand related to shortages in aerated water production by the appellants, who were franchise holders of M/s. Parle Exports Ltd. Discrepancies were noted between figures in the Sales Manager's Report (SMR) and RG 1 records, with an alleged shortage of 11,65,884 bottles. The lower authority dropped proceedings after considering explanations about purchases from other franchise holders and lack of evidence on clandestine removal.
The revenue appealed this decision, citing statements from company officials admitting purchases from other bottlers not reflected in SMRs. However, the company failed to provide details of inter-franchise purchases despite repeated requests. The lower authority's reliance on lack of evidence of excess purchases and failure to correlate figures was challenged.
The Commissioner found the demand based on SMR-1 figures to be speculative and lacking evidence. The failure to produce details of inter-franchise purchases led to an inference of no such purchases. However, some details were later produced, raising concerns about the acceptance of evidence not presented during investigation.
The adjudicating authority's decision was criticized for ignoring evidence of dilution by bottlers and discrepancies in production figures. The lack of evidence on excess purchases of bottles was questioned due to the reuse of bottles in the industry. The lower authority's failure to conduct a detailed correlation exercise between SMR and RG 1 figures was highlighted.
The Tribunal concluded that a fresh exercise was necessary to verify the correlation between reported purchases and alleged shortages. The decision was remanded for further adjudication based on a detailed comparison of figures. The dismissal of cross-appeals was noted as being misconceived in law.
In summary, the judgment addresses the duty demand issue concerning alleged shortages in aerated water production, emphasizing the need for a thorough correlation exercise and verification of reported purchases to support conclusions. The decision highlights the importance of detailed investigations and evidence in resolving disputes related to duty demands and production discrepancies.
-
1997 (8) TMI 284
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of criminal cases under Sections 40(3) and 56(1)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA).
2. Interpretation of Section 56(1)(ii) concerning non-compliance with Section 40(3) of FERA.
3. Impact of pending special leave petitions before the Supreme Court on the proceedings.
4. Binding nature of precedents and judgments rendered at the admission stage.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of Criminal Cases under Sections 40(3) and 56(1)(ii) of FERA:
The petitioners filed criminal original petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to withhold further proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 and 61 of 1996. The respondent had lodged complaints against the petitioners under Section 56(1)(ii) for alleged violations of Section 40(3) of FERA. The petitioners contended that the criminal cases were not maintainable as Section 40(3) did not specify consequences for non-compliance, nor did it relate to monetary value, which is a requisite for Section 56(1)(ii).
2. Interpretation of Section 56(1)(ii) Concerning Non-compliance with Section 40(3) of FERA:
The petitioners argued that Section 56(1)(ii) pertains to offenses measured by the value of money involved in the contravention, which Section 40(3) does not address. They cited the Kerala High Court decision in Itty v. Assistant Director, which held that failure to obey summons under Section 40(1) is not a contravention under Section 56. The respondent countered that non-compliance with Section 40(3) is punishable under Section 56(1)(ii), emphasizing that the Act is self-contained and non-compliance disrupts the investigation process. The Court examined both provisions and agreed with the petitioners, ruling that Section 56 is identified by the extent and value of money involved, which does not apply to Section 40(3).
3. Impact of Pending Special Leave Petitions Before the Supreme Court on the Proceedings:
The petitioners argued that since their special leave petitions challenging the summons under Section 40 were pending before the Supreme Court, the respondent should not have filed the complaints. They cited Garikapati v. Subbiah Choudhry, emphasizing the vested right of appeal. The respondent argued that the pendency of the matter does not prohibit proceeding with legal remedies unless there is an order of stay. The Court agreed with the respondent, noting the absence of a stay order from the Supreme Court and thus, negated the petitioners' contention.
4. Binding Nature of Precedents and Judgments Rendered at the Admission Stage:
The Court considered the binding nature of the Kerala High Court decision versus an unreported Madras High Court decision rendered at the admission stage. The petitioners argued that the latter, being rendered without full hearing, is not binding. The Court agreed, citing Abdul Malick v. Collector of Dharmapuri, which held that judgments rendered without hearing the contesting party do not serve as binding precedents. Consequently, the Court favored the Kerala High Court's interpretation.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that non-compliance with Section 40(3) of FERA does not constitute an offense under Section 56(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the criminal proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 and 61 of 1996 were quashed. The Court emphasized that Section 56(1)(ii) should be read in consonance with Section 56(1)(i), both of which relate to offenses involving monetary value, which is not applicable to Section 40(3).
-
1997 (8) TMI 283
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 88/77-C.E. regarding exemption for manufacturing footwear.
2. Burden of proof on the assessee to establish eligibility for the notification.
3. Examination of evidence and documents to determine the number of workers employed in the factory.
4. Validity of the Additional Collector's decision based on documentary evidence.
5. Adjudication of the appeal by the Tribunal.
Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the interpretation of Notification No. 88/77-C.E., which exempted the manufacturing of footwear. The Preventive Officer visited the factory and raised concerns about the number of workers and power usage, leading to a show cause notice. The Tribunal referred to a Bombay High Court judgment to determine eligibility for the concession based on the number of workers in the Boot Section of the factory.
2. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that the burden of proof was on the assessee to demonstrate eligibility for the notification by showing that the number of workers was less than 49. The Department claimed that the records were destroyed in a fire, but the Consultant contended that the department had seized documents, including attendance registers, which could have been scrutinized to verify the claim.
3. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and noted that the claim regarding eligibility should have been raised earlier in the proceedings. The Department's argument of guesswork was countered by the existence of attendance registers attached to the seizure panchnama, which detailed the number of workers in different sections of the factory. The Tribunal found no fault in the Additional Collector's decision, which was based on documentary evidence and submissions made during the proceedings.
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the lower order and dismissed the appeal from the Revenue, indicating that the decision was supported by a thorough examination of the evidence and documents available. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Additional Collector's findings and concluded that the appeal lacked merit based on the observations and analysis presented during the proceedings.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the interpretation of the notification, the burden of proof on the assessee, the examination of documentary evidence to determine the number of workers, and the validity of the Additional Collector's decision. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and consideration of the evidence led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
-
1997 (8) TMI 282
The appeal was filed against the disallowance of credit under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance due to improper duty paying documents. Trade Notices specified only SAIL and TISCO certificates for Modvat credit, not others. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower authorities' orders.
-
1997 (8) TMI 281
The appeal was filed against the order classifying 100% acrylic spun yarn under Heading 5504.39. The appellants argued for classification under 5504.90. The tribunal found that 100% acrylic yarn does not fall under 5504.32 and classified it under 5504.39, setting aside the lower authorities' decision. The appeal was allowed, and goods were classified under Heading 5504.39.
-
1997 (8) TMI 280
Issues:
1. Whether the combined clearances of two units exceeded the limit specified in a notification.
2. Whether the second unit manufacturing soap could be considered a manufacturer.
3. Whether the officers were aware that two factories belonged to the same manufacturer.
4. Whether the value of clearances of both units should be combined for duty calculation.
5. Whether the demand for differential duty was justified.
Analysis:
1. The appellants were availing benefits under a notification for manufacturing shoes, but the department found that another unit of the same manufacturer was manufacturing soap, leading to combined clearances exceeding the specified limit. A show cause notice was issued alleging suppression of facts to evade duty. The impugned order confirmed the demand and imposed penalties on the manufacturer and individuals involved.
2. The appellant argued that the second unit manufacturing soap should not be considered a manufacturer based on a Supreme Court judgment and a Tribunal's decision. They contended that the clearances of the soap unit should not be clubbed with the shoe unit's clearances. The Tribunal found that both units were manufacturers as per Section 2(f) of the Act, disagreeing with the appellant's interpretation.
3. The appellant claimed that since both units were under the same Collectorate, the officers should have been aware of the connection between the factories, making the extended period unavailable to the department. However, the Tribunal did not find this argument persuasive in the context of the case.
4. The Collector noted that the soap factory exclusively manufactured branded soap for another company and did not have independent production. Citing a Tribunal judgment, it was established that the value of clearances of the soap factory should not be added to the shoe factory's clearances for duty calculation. Consequently, the demand for differential duty was deemed unjustified by both parties.
5. Based on the analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order confirming the demand and penalty on the assessees. However, no decision was made regarding the penalties imposed on individual directors.
-
1997 (8) TMI 279
Issues: Alleged non-compliance with Central Excise procedures, duty payment for electric motors and cheese winding machines, validity of show cause notices, applicability of excise duty rates, eligibility for small scale concession, imposition of penalty, time-barred demand, quantification of short levy, validity of penalty imposition.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the case where the appellants were accused of manufacturing and clearing electric motors and cheese winding machines without adhering to Central Excise procedures or paying duty from 11-4-1986 to 31-3-1987. Initially issued a show cause notice by the Superintendent of Central Excise, a revised notice was later issued by the Additional Collector covering the same period. The Additional Collector demanded excise duty at standard rates for goods cleared during 1-4-1986 to 30-6-1986 for cheese winding machines and confirmed differential duty for electric motors and cheese winding machines post the rescission of Notification 46/81.
Regarding the argument presented by the appellants, it was contended that they had filed declarations for both electric motors and cheese winding machines and were previously exempt under Notification 46/81 until covered by an exemption for small scale industries. The appellants emphasized that failure to file a declaration should not negate substantive benefits under the law, citing a relevant case precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the appellants had indeed filed declarations for the relevant products in 1985 and 1986, thereby being eligible for benefits under Notification 46/81 until its rescission. The Additional Collector acknowledged the appellants' eligibility for small scale concession under the previous notification but held that they should have transitioned to the new notification or paid standard rates post-rescission. The Tribunal disagreed with the Additional Collector's stance that procedural irregularities could nullify substantive benefits, citing legal precedents supporting the appellants' entitlement to exemptions.
Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the show cause notice did not encompass charges for electric motors, only focusing on cheese winding machines. It was also noted that the demand for duty was time-barred as it exceeded the statutory six-month period, lacking justification for an extended timeline under Section 11A. The Tribunal deemed the penalty imposed without quantifying the duty as unsustainable, especially considering the absence of suppression, collusion, fraud, or wilful misstatement by the appellants.
Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the appellants based on the lack of substantiated charges, time limitations on the demand, and the disproportionate penalty imposition without proper quantification.
-
1997 (8) TMI 278
Issues: Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 6001.12 or 6001.19
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras dealt with the issue of classification of goods, specifically elastic tapes manufactured by knitting rubber strand with nylon vulcanised yarn. The original authority classified the goods under Heading 6001.12, while the Revenue sought classification under Tariff Heading 6001.19. The lower authority considered the definition of man-made textile material from the "Textile Terms definition" published by the Textile Terms Definition Committee of the Manchester Textile Institute. The lower authority concluded that the goods fell under Tariff Heading 6001.12 as knitted fabric of man-made textile material, supported by Section Note 2(b)(iii) of Section Note 14A of Section XI. The Revenue argued that rubber strand should be excluded as it falls under Chapter Heading 4007, covering vulcanised rubber thread and cord. However, the department failed to provide evidence or technical literature to support this claim.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the lower authority's decision to classify the rubber strand as man-made textile material based on the "textile terms definition" was valid. No evidence was presented to show that the rubber strand used in the goods could not be considered as man-made textile material or fell under Heading 4007. Without evidence that the rubber strand was vulcanised rubber thread and cord, it could not be excluded from Section XI. As the rubber strand combined with nylon vulcanised yarn was knitted into elastic tapes, the goods were correctly classified under Tariff Heading 6001.12. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was found to be without merit and dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 277
The appeal involved the classification of goods arising from the manufacture of rubberised fabrics as trimmings. The lower appellate authority held that the goods were not excisable and no differential duty was payable. The Tribunal disagreed with the revenue's reclassification under a different tariff heading and upheld the original classification under Tariff Heading 5905.90. The appeal was decided in favor of the appellant with no further duty payable.
-
1997 (8) TMI 276
Issues: Classification of steel tubes under Tariff Heading 73.17/19(1)(i) vs. 73.17/19(1)(ii)
Upon analyzing the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS, it was found that the issue at hand pertained to the classification of steel tubes imported by the appellants. The lower authority had classified the tubes under Tariff Heading 73.17/19(1)(i) with reference to Notification 38/84, while the appellants contended for classification under Tariff Heading 73.17/19(1)(ii). The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation and application of these tariff headings to the imported steel tubes.
The appellants argued that the imported tubes were utilized for manufacturing special drill bits that facilitated drilling operations requiring extended penetration. They asserted that the tubes functioned as a shank, with one end accommodating the drill bit and the other end facilitating attachment to drilling machines. The appellants contended that since Tariff Heading 73.17/19(1)(ii) encompassed drilling tubes and pipes, their goods should be deemed as drill tubes or blanks due to their utilization in drilling activities. They further argued for a broader interpretation of the term "drilling tubes" within the tariff.
Conversely, the department's representative contended that drilling tubes constituted a distinct category within Tariff Heading 73.17/19, intended specifically for drilling operations. They emphasized that tubes falling under this heading should be those actively involved in drilling processes. In the present case, it was argued that the imported tubes merely served as a shank for attaching the drill bit and did not directly contribute to the drilling function itself.
In response to the department's arguments, the appellants highlighted that the hollow section of the tube facilitated high-pressure coolant flow during deep drilling operations, aiding in cooling the drill bit and expelling metal debris generated during drilling. However, the Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both parties and examined the definition of "drill pipe" from the McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms.
The Tribunal elucidated that drilling operations, as commonly understood in the industry, primarily pertained to activities related to oil, gas, or water exploration. After thorough evaluation, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants' goods did not align with the recognized definition of drilling pipes in technical literature. Despite the appellants' claims regarding the specialized design and intended use of the tubes with drill bits, the Tribunal emphasized that mere association with the drill bit did not qualify the tubes as drilling tubes. The Tribunal underscored that the classification as drilling tubes should be based on industry recognition rather than functional association alone.
Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the department, dismissing the appeals on the grounds that the appellants' claim for classification under Tariff Heading 73.17/19(1)(ii) as drilling tubes was untenable. The judgment underscored the necessity for industry recognition and alignment with technical definitions in determining the classification of goods under specific tariff headings.
-
1997 (8) TMI 275
Issues:
1. Classification of objective lenses for cameras as accessories or parts under the Customs Act.
2. Interpretation of the Import-Export Policy regarding the classification of camera lenses.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved a dispute over the classification of 400 objective lenses for cameras as accessories or parts under the Customs Act. The department contended that the lenses were accessories requiring a specific license, while the respondents argued that they were parts of cameras and should be allowed under the Open General License (OGL).
The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) held that the objective lenses should be treated as parts of cameras and allowed under OGL. The Commissioner noted that the lenses did not change the basic function of the camera and were fitted as replacements for the normal lens. The Commissioner also highlighted that the SLR camera itself was allowed free of license under OGL, further supporting the classification of the lenses as parts.
In the grounds of appeal, the department argued that the lenses should be classified as accessories based on the definition in the ITC Policy. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the lenses were used as part of the camera itself for taking pictures from a distance, rather than for increasing the efficiency of the camera.
The Tribunal considered the definitions of accessories and parts, noting that while accessories contribute to the efficiency of equipment, the lenses were used as integral components of the camera for specific functions. The Tribunal agreed with the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the lenses were to be treated as parts of the cameras and allowed under OGL.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the department's appeal, ruling that the objective lenses for cameras were to be classified as parts rather than accessories under the Customs Act and the Import-Export Policy.
-
1997 (8) TMI 274
The issue was whether ceramics should be classified under Heading 6908, 6907, or 6909. The Tribunal upheld the classification under sub-heading 6908.10 for ceramic sinks, dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit. The lower authority's classification was deemed legal and proper. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 273
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification 202/88 for exemption eligibility based on duty paid inputs in the manufacturing process.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras revolves around the interpretation of Notification 202/88 concerning the eligibility for exemption based on the usage of duty paid inputs in the manufacturing process. The lower authority had denied the benefit of the exemption to the appellants on the grounds that the input material used was recognizable as non-duty paid. The appellants, represented by their advocate, argued that the unusable moulds returned to them for remanufacturing should not be considered as non-duty paid items. They contended that the authorities must establish that the input materials did not suffer duty before denying the benefit of the notification. The advocate emphasized that the unusable moulds, despite having only scrap value, should still be considered duty paid items as they had initially been subject to duty. He argued that the benefit of the notification should not be denied unless it is proven that the input material had not suffered duty.
The Departmental Representative (JDR) countered the appellants' arguments by asserting that the unusable moulds, being in the form of scrap, did not retain their character as duty paid items. The JDR contended that once the moulds became unusable and were reduced to mere scrap, they lost their original characteristics and could only be considered as scrap material. The JDR maintained that since the scrap did not undergo any duty payment, it could not be deemed as duty paid material. Furthermore, the JDR argued that the creation of new moulds from the scrap did not alter the fact that the original material had not been subject to duty.
After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the unusable moulds, which had initially suffered duty, lost their duty paid status once they became scrap material. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of the notification was to prevent double taxation on inputs that had already been subject to duty. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' plea, stating that the unusable moulds, being transformed into scrap, did not qualify as duty paid items as they had not undergone duty payment at the supplier's end. The Tribunal cited a similar case involving Shri Ram Refrigerators to support its decision.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments. Additionally, a cross-appeal filed as comments was deemed legally misconceived and dismissed accordingly.
-
1997 (8) TMI 272
Issues:
- Benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Plain plates, Electrical items, M.S. Angles, Welding Electrodes.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved the issue of the benefit of Modvat credit concerning various items like Plain plates, Electrical items, M.S. Angles, and Welding Electrodes. The lower authority had denied the Modvat credit after considering the uses of these items in the appellant's factory. The appellant contended that the items should be eligible for Modvat credit based on specific arguments related to each item.
Regarding Electrical items, the appellant argued that they were used for installation work for maintenance purposes and should be considered parts for equipment or apparatus, falling under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant sought Modvat credit for these items based on this interpretation.
In the case of Welding Electrodes, the appellant claimed that they were used in the workshop for maintenance and metal joining purposes. Citing a previous decision by the Tribunal, the appellant argued for Modvat credit eligibility either as capital goods or as inputs.
Regarding M.S. Angles and plain plates, the appellant asserted that these items were used for maintenance of the ARC furnace in the factory, which they considered as part of the plant. The appellant argued that these goods should be covered under Rule 57Q as parts or accessories of capital equipment.
On the other hand, the JDR for the department contended that the items in question did not meet the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q for Modvat purposes. The JDR argued that the items were not used as spare parts or accessories and were not covered under Rule 57Q.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the presiding judge observed that for Modvat credit to be allowed, the goods must meet the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. The judge agreed with the lower authority's decision to deny the Modvat credit, as the items in question did not qualify as parts or accessories of the specified capital goods under Rule 57Q. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the denial of Modvat credit to the appellant for the items in question.
-
1997 (8) TMI 271
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS ruled in favor of the Appellant, a fruit drink manufacturer, regarding the classification of their product under the Tariff. The Tribunal held that the demand for differential duty was confirmed only for the period from 17-4-1990 to 15-5-1990, based on the Trade Advice in force until 17-4-1990. The appeals were allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 270
The case involves the manufacture of Aluminium Conductors Steel Reinforced (A.C.S.R.) using duty-paid steel wires. The appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 208/83. The appellants argued that manufacturing stranded wires from duty-paid steel wires does not involve a dutiable process. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the steel wires were recognized as non-duty paid, so deemed credit was not permissible.
............
|
9911796707
