9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of 8 m.m. diameter. Thereupon these are drawn through a machine and its gauge is reduced. 3. The appellants buy the requirements of mild steel wire rods in the open market mostly from the Steel Authority of India Ltd. All sellers of mild steel rods pay duty and clear the said goods. 4. It was their contention that reducing the guage of mild steel wire rods was not manufacture and thus the activity undertaken by the appellants did not amount to manufacture and they were not required to take out a central excise licence. But in view of the insistence of the department they took out a licence and followed the prescribed procedure, but claimed exemption w.r.t Notification No. 75/67, 113/80, 111/78 as the products manufactured out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its inability to grant relief of excise duty in r/o steel wires manufactured from steel wire rods falling under Tariff Item 26A without production of documentary proof of payment of duty on wire rods. 13. Ld. Counsel reiterated his submissions and emphasised that duty can be demanded only w.r.t. Section 11A and not w.r.t. Rule 173(I). It was also his contention that principles of natural justice were not duly observed as the demand has been raised without prior notice. 14. It was also his submission that the Tribunal has vide its order in the case of Eastern Industries and Marketing Co. reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 801 has held that the goods purchased in the open market under proper bills could not in the normal course come in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the output was also a wire. 18. Further, the appellants have rightly drawn our attention to the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad No. 2 to 12/ADDL. COLLR/1983, dated 29-1-1983 in which the Collector had dropped the proceedings in case of demands of duty in respect of wires drawn from wire rods after examining the case from both the angles, namely, : (1) that the process involved did not amount to process of manufacture as claimed by the assessees and (2) even if it was a process of manufacture, the benefit of Notification No. 31/76 and 206/63 could not be denied. 19. He has referred to a situation similar to one in the present case where the material had been purchased from Steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
