9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellants, and Shri P.K. Jain, SDR, for the respondents/Revenue, we condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeal. 2. As both the appeals arise out of a common order-in-appeal, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The matter relates to the central excise duty liability in respect of the copper rods and copper flats/bars. These copper rods and copper flats/bars were obtained after the duty paid hot rolled copper rods and exempted flats/bars had been subjected to the process of drawing through cold rolled process. The copper rods received by the appellants had discharged duty liability under Notification No. 174/84-CE, dated 1-8-1984, and similarly copper flats/bars had availed of duty exemption under the said Notification No. 174/84-C.E. Both the copper rods and copper flat/bars were classifiable under sub-item (3)(i) of Item No. 26A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, before they were received by M/s. Adarsh, and continued to remain so classifiable when after drawing they were ready for clearance from the premises of the appellants. M/s. Adarsh had pleaded that the process adopted by them was not a process of man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under the said Tariff Entry, wrought bars and rods (including wire rods) were explained as under : (a) any extruded, rolled, drawn or forged products of solid section, of which the width or the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 6 millimetres and which, if they are flat, have a thickness exceeding one tenth of the width; or (b) any cast or sintered products, of the same forms and dimensions, which have been subsequently worked after production (otherwise than by simple trimming or descaling), provided that they have not thereby assumed the character of any article or product falling under any other item. 7. Under Notification No. 174/84-C.E., dated 1-8-1984, the specified goods falling under Item No. 26A of the Tariff, made from duty paid copper and products thereof, falling under the same Item No. 26A, were exempted from the duty as was in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the Table annexed to that notification. Notification No. 174/84-C.E., dated 1-8-1984 is extracted below : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods of the descrip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /34-C.E., dated 1-8-1984.] 8. With effect from 1-8-1984, the copper rods received by M/s Adarsh were classifiable in the hands of their suppliers under sub-item (3)(i) of Item No. 26A and the concessional rate of central excise duty of Rs. 1,300/- per M.T. under exemption Notification No. 174/84-C.E. had been paid in respect of such copper rods. The flats/bars received from outside were also classifiable under sub-item (3)(i) of Item No. 26A, but they were charged to nil rate of duty under Sl. No. I of the Table annexed to that Notification No. 174/84-C.E. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, who had adjudicated the matter had observed that after 1-8-1984 the gate passes of M/s. Navyug Steel Indus. showed that the copper rods received by the appellants had been classified under Item No. 26A(3)(i) and had discharged the duty at the rate of Rs 1,300/ per M.T. under Notification No. 174/84-C.E., dated 1-8-1984. Similarly, flats/bars received by the appellants had been classified under Item No. 26A(3)(i) and were charged to nil rate of duty under said Notification No. 174/84-C.E. In his order-in-original, he had observed as under : "After 1-8-1984 the gate passes of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is no finding that any new goods had been manufactured and whether the goods received and the goods under consideration were not the same goods and that new goods had emerged. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his order had referred as under : "On the basis of the above tariff description there is a clear cut distinction between `a rolled bar and a drawn bar' and `a rolled rod and a drawn rod' and the present tariff distinguishes `a hot rolled rod from a cold drawn rod' and `a hot rolled flat/bar from a cold drawn flat/bars. In these circumstances, the Asstt. Collector had correctly held that further drawing of hot rolled duty paid rods and flats amounts to manufacture and therefore they are chargeable to duty after 1-8-1984. I fully agree with the Asstt. Collector's views. The appellants have inter alia contended that they reduce the diameter and thickness of the rods received by them by a process of drawing and, thereafter, cutting into required length and as such the said process does not amount to manufacture. I do not agree with their contention in view of the revised tariff description of Tariff Item 26A with effect from 1-8-1984, and the Asstt. Collector ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal had held that reducing the dimension or guage of the wire rod is not a process of manufacture as it does not result in emerging a new commodity. 14. In the case of Srinivasa Metal Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 578 (Tribunal), the appellants were cutting the circles from duty paid aluminium strip. They pleaded that since the circles and strips fall in the same sub-item, no duty was leviable on the circles. The Tribunal held that a new and distinct commercial product emerging from, manufacture was exigible to duty, even if they fall within the same Tariff Item or sub-heading and that aluminium circles made from duty paid aluminium strips were exigible to duty. In the matter before us, there is no finding that a new and distinct commercial product had emerged from the processes to which the goods received by the appellants were subjected to. The matter had been decided only on the ground that the processes to which the goods received by the appellants were subjected to were the process of manufacture. In a matter of this nature, in our view, whether a particular process amounts to the process of manufacture or not, for the purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
