Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce Jaipur-I vs Ms. Balaji Udyog on 17 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(132)ELT59(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Ms. Jyoti Balsundaram, Member (J)
1. The issue in dispute in above appeal of the Revenue is whether the process carried out by the respondent of drawing wire from wire rods of 6 M.M. to & M.M. thickness, resulting in reduction of thickness, is a process of manufacture. The Additional Commissioner held that the wires are known by specific name different from their inputs i.e. wire rods, physical character, cross section, strength etc. of the wire are also different from those of the wire rods, that iciest to which wires are put are different from the uses of wire rods, and that both the items are distinctly known in the trade parlance and therefore criterion of manufacture is satisfied. He therefore, confirmed duty demand and also imposed a penalty upon the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, holding that the process does not amount to manufacture, following the rediae of Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Technoweld Industries (Final Order No. 85/2000-B) dated 13.1.2000-and M/s Hind Enterprises (Final Order No. 689/2000B dated 4.5.2000.
2. On hearing both sides, we note that in addition to the above mentioned orders of the Tribunal there is another decision which has taken same view namely Vishvaman Industries Vs CCE Delhi reported in 2001 (42) RLT 724. Civil appeal filed by the Revenue against this order has been dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 19.3.2001.
3. Since the issue in dispute in this case stands settled in favour of assessee by the above mentioned decisions, we see no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.