TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of the said conductors bare aluminium wire which is the subject matter of the proceedings and which is drawn from the aluminium rods are used and the specification of the said wires are 10 SWG and less than 10 SWG. These wires are drawn from the duty paid aluminium rods and are used to manufacture conductors and the appellants have duly paid the duty on the conductors. In the present matter the Revenue authorities have demanded duty on the said bare aluminium wires less than 10 SWG after suing a show cause notice in December, 1981, and the period involved is October, 1978 to February, 1982. A reply to the show cause notice also has been given. The Assistant Collector had rejected the appeal and the appellants having not satisfied w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. He pleaded for the rejection of the appeal. 2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are not disputed and they are similar to the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. M/s. Andhra Industrial Works vide Order No. E.115-119/91-B1, dated 9-5-1991 reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 838 (Tri.). Para numbers 7, 8 and 9 from the said decision are reproduced below: 7. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and examined the relevant records. It is seen that in this case the main points that arise for considerations are :- (i) Whether conversion of aluminium wires into aluminium conductors r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same duty cannot be exacted again, on the wire which went into the conductor. And the department has done rather well. It can take the same duty only once and it did so at the most favourable point, the conductor point, when the value had gone up by reason of the stranding etc. etc. that product the cable conductor. Had it taken duty at the wire point, it would have collected duty on a lower value, and once it had done so would have disqualified itself from collecting the same duty, 33B(ii), once again on the cable conductor made of wire which had already paid that very same [335B][iii] (ii) duty. Reference has been made to Rule 9 and Rule 49. In the view taken by us further discussion on this aspect become redundant. 9. It is also se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
