TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eel wires pass through a rotor, rotating at high speed and having 8 dies and thereby the wires get straightened to a very close accuracy. These wires then go to the cutting section of the machine where it is cut to pre-determined sizes. The appellants did not obtain a Central Excise licence for these processes and cleared the Filler Wire from their factory without payment of Central Excise duty. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to them by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-IV, Indore on 3-8-83 for confiscation of the seized filler wire valued at Rs. 3,500/-, imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and for recovering duty amounting to Rs. 68,684.82 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Salt Act as there was no transformation into a new product. Hence, the appellants were not required to obtain a Central Excise licence and no duty was payable on the Filler Wire cleared from the appellant s factory. In support of his argument the learned advocate relied on the following judgments/decisions :- (i) 1988 (16) ECR 115 (S.C.) = 1988 (34) E.L.T. 5 (SC) - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v. M/s. Kiran Spinning Mills, Thane. It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in that case that straightening and cutting of the running lengths of man-made fibre into shorter lengths was not manufacture under the Central Excise law as no new substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the word manufacture implied a change but every change in the raw material was not a manufacture. There must be such a transformation that a new and different article must emerge having a distinct name, character or use. (v) 1990 (26) ECR 349 (CEGAT) = 1989 (44) E.L.T. 113 (Tri.) - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Western India Tanneries Ltd. It was held in the said case that cutting of tanned leather to various sizes was not a process of manufacture, nor had the original commodity undergone a change to result in a new product. (vi) 1989 (24) ECR 746 (CEGAT) - R.S. Steel Works, Ghaziabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. It was held by the Tribunal that cutting to sizes, punching and galvanising of duty-paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... damental change. Hence, there was no manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Salt Act and no duty was chargeable under Tariff Heading 4818.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The learned advocate further argued that the show cause notice in this case was issued on 3-8-1983 for the period from August, 1978 to June, 1983. Part of the demand was, therefore, time-barred. The Officers of Central Excise and audit party visited the appellants factory and the processes undertaken by the appellants were known to the officers. There was, therefore, no suppression of facts by the appellants. 4. The learned DR reiterated what has been stated in the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the records of the case. We have als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
