ALCO FLEX Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Order -in -appeal No. 95/2002 (M -I) dt. 29.11.2002, by which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that drawing of wire from rods for use in transformer amounts to manufacture and he upheld the order of the lower authority confirming the duty demand of Rs. 2,12,167/ -. He also reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/ -.

(2.) Aggrieved by this order, the appellants have come in appeal on the ground that drawing of wire from rods for use in transformer does not amount to manufacture and therefore the order of confirming duty and of imposing penalty is not legal and proper. In this connection Ld. Consultant, Shri. Namasivayam, invited our attention to the judgement rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Navsari Processing Industries v. Collector of CE, Baroda , wherein it has been held that reducing the dimension or gauge of the wire rod is not a process of manufacture as it does not result in emerging a new commodity. Ld. Consultant also invited our attention to the judgement rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Jyoti Engg. Corporation v. Collector of CE , by which also the Tribunal has held that drawing wires of lesser gauge from wires of higher gauge does not amount to manufacture and hence not liable to pay any further duty. He further submitted that in view of the well -settled position of law, reducing the thicker size to thinner size does not amount to manufacture and therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay any further duty and no penalty can also be imposed on them. Ld. Consultant also submitted that even coating and covering of bare electric wire with paper, cotton of fiberglass yarn does not amount to manufacture of a new commodity, in view of the decision of the lower adjudicating authority and the decision of the Apex Court judgement in the matter of Collector of CE, Bombay v. Popular Cotton Covering Works

(3.) Heard Ld. DR, Shri A. Jayachandran.