INDORE WIRE COMPANY LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have examined the records of the case. The question arising in this case is whether M.S. (Mild Steel) Galvanised Wires manufactured and cleared by the appellants during 1981 -82 and 82 -83 were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 33B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 [i.e. the old Central Excise Tariff] as claimed by the department or under T.I. No. 26AA of the said Tariff as claimed by the assessee. The Collector of Central Excise held the classification in favour of the Revenue and confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 23.66 lakhs against the assessee. The appeal preferred against the decision of the Collector was disposed of by this Bench as per Final Order No.E/912/97 -B dated 12.12.97. That order also was in favour of the department. The assessee approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) with a writ Petition. The Hon'ble High Court passed the following order:

(2.) The appeal has come up again before this Bench pursuant to the above remand by the Hon'ble High Court. We are called upon to take a fresh decision in the appeal after examining the evidence of Shri K.R. Ramanujam. We have, at the outset, to determine as to what extent his evidence is relevant and reliable.

(3.) Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the oral evidence of Shri K.R. Ramanujam had been wrongly interpreted by the adjudicating authority. Shri Ramanujam was a graduate in Mechanical Engg. from Madras University and had served the Post and Telegraph Department of Government of India for over 21 years. As Deputy General Manager in the said department, he had given the expert opinion that galvanized steel wires were not a suitable medium for transmission of electrical energy and that only copper or aluminium wires were used for such transmission. The wires in question were not used for transmitting electrical energy from one place to another. They were used only as a medium for transmission of information in both telephony and telegraphy. These submissions of the expert were not properly appreciated by the Collector. Shri Ramanujam's evidence was clearly against classifying the subject goods as electrical wires. Counsel also referred to a letter dated 29.8.1964 of the Central Board of Revenue, mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal, and relied on the letter to show that electrical wires and cables manufactured out of electrolytic grade copper/aluminium alone were dutiable under T.I. 33 -B. However, counsel could not make available to copy of the Board's letter. Ld. Counsel, further, argued that the burden was on the Revenue to correctly classify the goods on the basis of adequate evidence. According to him, in the present case, there was no evidence to support classification of the goods under T.I. 33B.