9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture CO2/MIG Welding Wire i.e. Copper Coated Wire that they purchase duty paid M.S. Wires which are drawn to desired lower size in wire drawing machine and thereafter are copper coated by dipping process in the coating tanks; that the process undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Centra1 Excise Act; that every process does not amount to manufacture. He relied upon the decision in the case of Bothra Metal Industries v. CCE, Vadodara, [1998 (99) E.L.T. 120 (Tribunal) = 1998 (24) RLT 733 (T)] wherein it was held that processes of pickling, cold rolling, hot-rolling, intermediate annealing, process of drawing for reduction of the cross-sectional area/thickness of rods do not amount to manufacture. He, fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never mentioned in their declaration, that they were not coating the product with flux material which was requisite for classifying the product under Heading 83.11 of the Tariff; that thus this material fact was suppressed by the appellants, and therefore, extended period of limitation is invokable in the present matter. The learned SDR further submitted that the process undertaken by them amounts to manufacture; that they are bringing M.S. wire which are manufactured as welding wire by the processes applied by them and as a distinct commodity with a new name, character, and use comes into existence, manufacture has taken place. He relied upon the decision in the case of CCE v. D.K. Electricals Industries, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 272 (T) wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present matter the M.S. wire becomes welding wire known as a distinct commercial commodity having different name, character and use and as such process undertaken by the Appellants amounts to manufacture. 5. We, however, agree with the learned Advocate that the demand is hit by time limit; except for the month of September, 1989, as the appellants had declared their product and furnished process of manufacture in the declaration filed by them in 1988 and as such it can not be alleged that there was any suppression or wilful misdeclaration by them with intent to evade payment of duty. The Department was aware of the goods manufactured by them and the process undertaken by them and accordingly the extended period of time limit cannot be inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
