9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides and considered the submission and find :- (a) The learned Advocate for the Appellants relies on the following case laws : (i) Jyoti Engineering Corporation [1989 (42) E.L.T. 100 (T)] (ii) Resistance Alloys (I) Ltd. [1996 (84) E.L.T. 507 (T)] (iii) Navasari Processing Industries [1996 (85) E.L.T. 386 (T)] (iv) Kanthal Bi Metals [1999 ( 106) E.L.T. 337 (T)] (v) Premier Winding Wires Conductors [2000 (115) E.L.T. 698 (T)] confirmed by Apex Court [2000 (119) E.L.T. A242] (vi) Puranmal Bansal [2000 (122) E.L.T. 690 (T)] (vii) CCE, New Delhi v. Mithan Wires [1999 (34) RLT 252 (T)] (viii) CCE, Calcutta v. Indian Pin Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1999 (34) RLT 321 (T)] (ix) Technoweld Industries [2000 ( 39) RLT 397 (T)] (x) Vishvaman Industries v. CCE, Delhi [2001 (127) E.L.T. 155 (T)] = [2001 (42) RLT 724 (T)] confirmed by S.C. [2001 (131) E.L.T. A251 (S.C.) = 2001 (44) RLT F5]. To claim that they had never claimed the benefit of Notification 202/88 and hence question of denying the same does not arise and in view of the settled petition of the law, as in the Case Law relied, the activity of Drawing wire from the higher gauges does not amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods of 8mm diameter. Thereupon these are drawn through machine and its gauge is reduced. It was held that reducing the gauge of mild steel wire rod was not manufacture. This case is not deciding the issue of whether the activity of rod being drawn into wire is manufacture, and cannot be an authority for such an issue. At best it can be an authority for deciding matters of drawing rods into rods. 7. India Pin Manufacturing Company [1999 (34) RLT 321]. The head note in the report is misleading and incorrect. The correct facts of this case were that aluminium rod was being made into aluminium welding electrodes. Reliance cannot be placed on this case to decide the present issue as the facts are very different. 8. Technoweld Industries [2000 (39) RLT 397 (T)]. This case has relied upon the decision of Navsari Processing Industries (No. 6 above) to come to a finding that the matter of drawing wire from rods has been settled by the Tribunal. It does not disclose as to what material the rods/wires were made from. The constituent material is relevant because in Chapter 74 for copper, wires and rods have different connotations as compared to Chapter 72. The decision has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace) is whether on account of the processes undertaken or employed by the assessee, the commodity so obtained is no longer regarded as the original commodity but is instead recognized as a distinct and new article that has emerged as a result of the processes. (iii) In JG Glass [1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)] the Supreme Court laid down a two fold test for manufacture : (i) whether by the said process the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist (ii) whether the existing commodity will serve no purpose but for the process. (iv) In Empire Industries [1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.)] which was confirmed by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Ujagar Prints and Others [1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court held that any process creating something else having a distinctive name, character and use would result in manufacture. (v) In Chowgule and Company [1993 (67) E.L.T. 34 (S.C.)] = [1981 1 SCC 653] the Supreme Court held that whatever may be the operation it is the effect that is material. (This case is however not under the Central Excise Act. Similarly in Indian Aluminium Cable [1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] which is under Central Excise Act, the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken contrary view on the issue involved herein, it is appropriate that the issue has to be resolved by the Larger Bench. Accordingly we direct the Registry to place this matter before the Hon ble President to constitute a Larger Bench to resolve the issue. The point to be considered by the Larger Bench is whether conversion of drawing of M.S rods into M.S Wires would result in new exigible goods coming into existence for the levy of duty under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In view of the Supreme Court's decision on manufacture submitted by the revenue and recorded hereinabove. Sd/-(S.S. Sekhon)Member (T) 6. [Per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - I have gone through the proposed order written by my ld. Brother Sh. S.S. Sekhon, Member (T). With respects I am unable to agree with his conclusion in referring the issue to the Larger Bench. Hence this separate order. 7. The short point to be considered in this case is whether drawing of M.S. wires from M.S Wire Rods amounts to manufacture or not. I find that the issue involved herein has already been covered by a series of decisions including following viz. (i) Technoweld Industries v. CCE, Jaipur [2000 (39) RLT 397 (C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resenting the revenue and ld. Counsel for the appellant. The reliance of the appellant is on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vishvaman Industries v. CCE, Delhi reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 155 (T) = 2001 (42) RLT 724 (T) wherein the Tribunal had held that drawing of wires does not result in manufacture. The revenue filed an appeal against this order and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court. [Reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. A251 = 2001 (44) RLT F5]. 12. The findings of the Tribunal on the issue in Vishvaman Industries case was as under : 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides. It has not been rebutted by the Revenue that the raw material received by the Revenue was in coil form. The process adopted by the Appellant is only to draw the wire by decreasing the sectional area. The Tribunal in Indian Pin Mfg. Co., supra, has clearly held that the process of drawing of wires from wire rod does not amount to manufacture following the decision in Jyoti Engg. Corpn., supra, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. A24. There is no substance in the finding in the impugned Order that under old Central Excise Tariff both w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
