9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on manufacture of PVC Insulated Winding Wire was available only if the input was wire of maximum cross dimensional area exceeding 6 mm of copper. We do not find under the notification any reference to the fact that PVC Winding wire should be made from cross-dimensional area less than 6 mm. This would be a mere presumption and has not been explained by the learned Counsel. Once the conditions of the notification are laid down, we see no reason to deviate from the same. Time bar - Held that: - it is impossible for the Central Excise authorities to know that the assessee was using such wire. It was only after audit was conducted that the true facts came to light. Therefore, there is clear suppression of facts in claiming the benefit of notification wrongly. The extended period in such case is invocable. Whether the plea that the benefit of Modvat credit on the inputs should be given in case the benefit of exemption is denied, is justified? - Held that: - had they not availed the benefit of Nil rate of duty under the exemption, Modvat credit on the inputs would have been available - we allow the benefit of the Modvat credit on the inputs subject to verification by the jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to manufacture. He relies on Collector of Central Excise v. Technoweld Industries Ltd. - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.). The learned Counsel contends that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been given any finding on this plea made by them that the process itself does not amount to manufacture. 2.2 The next argument is that although the PVC winding wire should be made from wire exceeding 6 mm cross-sectional diameter, but this does not mean that the wire exceeding 6 mm cross-sectional diameter should be in the hands of the appellant themselves. He relies on Board Circular No. 2/91/CX-4, dated 2-1-1991 which clarified that, if for the purpose of exemption the input is specified as billet, it cannot be held that exemption would not be available if the input is a wire rod, which is obtained from billets. He also relies on Board Circular No. 93/13/87-CX.3, dated 25-6-1987, which clarified that so long as duty paid bare films which have gone into the manufacture of such lacquered/ laminated/metallised can be proved to have been manufactured out of duty paid plastic material, such lacquered films can also be said to have been manufactured from duty paid plastic material. He relied on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in this case is copper wire of cross-dimensional area either exceeding 6 mm or below 6 mm. We would appreciate that no manufacture is involved if the wire of higher cross-dimension is drawn into the wire of lesser cross-dimension. But in the present case, the final product for which exemption is being claimed is PVC Insulated Winding Wire. The input and the finished products are clearly distinct products and are known in the market as such. It would not require much imagination to show that process of making of PVC Insulated Winding Wire from simple wire is a process resulting in a different product and thus amounting to manufacture. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel i.e. Technoworld Industries (supra) are of no help because in that case the process considered was drawing the wire from a wire-rod. Similarly, the facts in the case of National Insulated Cable Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 109 are different because in that case the copper strips were insulated with varnish and it was held that the character of copper strips was not changed by this process. In the present case, it is not a simple case of coating. It is a case of sheathing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as that exemption cannot be denied on the ground That wire was made from an intermediate product i.e. wire rod which in turn was made from a billet which was explicitly included as an input for the benefit of the notification. 4.3 On the issue of time bar, we would agree with the findings of the Commissioner that once the notification benefit is claimed in the classification which is approved by the Central Excise authorities, it goes without saying that the conditions of the notification have to be satisfied. It is not possible for Revenue to know beforehand that the condition will not be satisfied. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. (supra) is based on the fact that the extended period of limitation would not apply when the classification list has been duly approved. In the present case approval was given for benefit of the notification. But later it was revealed that the condition of the notification approved in the classification list was not observed. Neither the Form-IV register indicated that the appellant were receiving the wires of less than 6 mm dimension; nor the RT-12 returns were shown to us indicating that wire of less than 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
