TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment has filed a supplementary appeal No. 1826 with a prayer for condonation of delay. Since the original appeal was filed in time the delay in filing of the supplementary appeal in condoned. Similarly, appeal No. 756/85-B1 is also against a common Order No. 270 to 272/84 (H) passed by the Collector (Appeals) in respect of three appeals. Accordingly, the department has filed two supplementary, appeals No. E/1790 1791/91-Bl alongwith applications for condonation of delay. The original appeal No. 756/85-B1 being in time, the delay in filing these supplementary, appeals is also condoned. 2. In these five appeals the same issues have been raised. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common order. 3. Briefly stated the facts of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or. In the appeals filed by the respondents the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector on the grounds that subjecting both aluminium wires and conductors to duty would amount to double taxation since both items used for carrying current were classifiable under Tariff Item 33B(ii) and stranding of aluminium wires into conductors did not result in emergence of a new product having distinctive character and use. 5. On behalf of the department we heard the learned JDR Shri M.S. Arora. Reiterating the submissions made in the memorandum of appeal, he contended that conversion of aluminium wires into aluminium conductors results in the manufacture of a new item within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve consumption for the manufacture of conductors were chargeable to duty. (iii) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 187/83 dated 9-7-1983 was-not admissible in respect of demands for recovery of duty on aluminium wires cleared for captive consumption prior to 9-7-1983. 8. We find that these points are fully covered by the Tribunal s decision in the case of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Anantapur v. Ranka Cables (Pvt.) Ltd, Cuddapah (Order No. 156-160/86-B1 dated 11-3-1986). The relevant extracts from this decision are reproduced below: The appeal does not say how the cables are assessed. The Appellate Collector held they were assessed under Item 33B(ii). This is the same sub-item under which the department wants to assess t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demands for recovery of duty on the intermediate product pertained to the period prior to the issue of Notification No. 187/83 dated 9-7-1983 on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Empire Industries Ltd, and others v. U.O.I. [1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (SC)] = [1985 ECR 1169] it was held that even if it was assumed that aluminium wires were by themselves a finished item of electric wires and cables and they were a distinct product from AAC and ACSR conductors, since the proforma credit procedure under Rule 56A applied to Item 33B and admittedly both aluminium wires and conductors fell under the same Tariff sub-item 33B(ii) All others it was not permissible for the department to collect and retain the full dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
