MADHU ELECTRICALS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LD . Advocate Shri J.C. Patel appearing for the appellant submits that duty stand confirmed against them and penalties imposed on the findings of the clandestine manufacture and clearance of enameled copper and aluminium wires. He submits that without agitating on the evidences available on record, he would like to submit that even if the Revenues case is accepted the said activity of enameling of bare wires received by them from their customers does not amount to manufacture in terms of various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and Honble Bombay High Court and as such no duty was required to be paid by them. He also drawn our attention to an application filed under Rule 10 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 for raising above additional grounds, inasmuch as the said plea was not taken before Commissioner.

(2.) ARGUING on the application, ld. Advocate submits that the following judgments lay down that process of enameling bare wires does not amount to manufacture : -

(3.) COUNTERING the argument, Dr. Manoj Kumar Rajak, ld. SDR submits that the case was made out against the appellants 33 years back and no such plea was ever raised before adjudicating authority. He further submits that the decision relied upon by the appellants were not available during the relevant period having been rendered subsequently, the benefit of the same should not be extended to the applicant.