9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estinely removed aluminium wire and bolts without payment of duty and also committed other violations of the Central Excises and Salts Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by their failure to take out a central excise licence and to maintain the statutory records and submit the prescribed returns. The Collector called upon the appellants to pay the central excise duty and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- on them under rule, 173 read with rules 9 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, acting as the appellate authority, gave the benefit of time-bar to the appellants so far as the period prior to 17-9-1980 is concerned, held that charge of clandestine removal was not established but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich states that for the purposes of computing the aggregate value of clearances under this notification, the clearances of any specified goods, which are exempt from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon by any other notification, was not to be taken into account. The appellants maintained that they manufactured steel wire from duty-paid steel rods and since such wires were fully exempt under Notification No. 206/63-C.E., their clearances of steel wire should not be added to arrive at the aggregate value of their clearances in the preceding financial year. When it was brought to their notice that benefit of the Explanation V could not be extended to them because this Explanation applied only to specified goods and steel wire was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal stage to the effect that the charge of clandestine removal had not been established and that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of time-bar for a big chunk of the original period of demand, it was excessive. 3. The Department s representative maintained that steel wire rod and steel wire were two distinct commercial products. Wire rod was a hot-rolled product for conversion into wire while wire was a drawn product. Regrading Delhi High Court judgment in Sulekh Ram s case, he cited a later judgment of Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Erode (1978 E.L.T. J. 57) in which the said High Court held that once the goods were exempted from excise duty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thickness 6.3 mm, Max (e) Half-round 12.5 mm diameter, Max 5. The appellants say that wire rod and wire are one and the same thing. But we find that aforesaid I.S.I. definitions do not say so. On the contrary, these definitions show that the two have a separate commercial nomenclature as well as separate charateristics even though both may have overlapping diameters within a particular raSnge. The process of manufacture of the two is different. Wire rods are made out of steel ingots or semis by hot-rolling process and are an intermediate product. Wire is made from wire rods by the process of drawing through dies and is defined by the I.S.I., as a finished product. Their uses are also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was, therefore, not applicable to the appellants. It became applicable to them only with effect from 7-4-1981 when the amending Notification No. 103/81-C.E. added a fourth source material in it, namely, other duty-paid iron or steel products falling under sub-item (ia) of item 26AA of the Tariff. Since the amending notification was applicable only from the date of its issue, that is, 7-4-1981, its benefit cannot be claimed by the appellants for the past period (17-9-1980 to 16-3-1981). During the material period, relief was available to the appellants only under Rule 56A procedure which provided that the appellants could take proforma credit of the duty already paid on wire rods purchased by them and then pay duty on steel wire manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
