Judgment:
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Original dated 25-10-1988, passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara, confirming the confiscation of 146.350 kgs. of Copper Strips and ordering release of the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He has also confirmed duty demand of Rs. 41,066.63 on clearance of Copper Strips and copper flats/rods cleared by them without payment of duty from 1984-85 onwards. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has also been imposed. The show cause notice was issued on 31-7-1987 to the appellants charging them of having manufactured and cleared inter alia copper strips and copper wires without obtaining C.E. licence and complying with the formalities as required under C.E. law. The assessee denied the charges and submitted that the activities undertaken by them does not amount to process of manufacture as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It was their contention that they had filed declaration in the year 1986 declaring about the details of the manufacture. The processes carried out was merely pickling, cold rolling, hot-rolling by Mini-hot-rolling, intermediate annealing, further annealing, cold-drawing etc. They also/claimed exemption of the benefit of Notification No. 61/83, dated 1-3-1983. It was submitted that the demands were barred by time as they had filed the declaration in 1986 and the notice is dated 31-7-1987. The Additional Collector rejected these pleas and held that these processes add to the value and bring into existence a new article and hence it has to be considered as process of manufacttire. He rejected the plea of the benefit of the notification and also the plea raised on the time bar.
2. Arguing for the appellant, the learned Advocate submitted that the issue is no longer res Integra and the question of the item having undergone processes to become a new commodity has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v.Steel Strips Ltd. as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the revenue appeal and upheld the assessee's contention that the process of hot rolled strips to undergo and become cold rolled strips does not amount to a process of manufacture. The learned advocate also brings to the notice, the judgments of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Adarsh Metal Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 203 and that of Resistance Alloys (I) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 507. In the case of Adarsh Metal Industries, the Tribunal held that the process undertaken was the process of drawing for reduction of the cross-sectional area/thickness of rods, flats and bars and the goods remained classifiable under the same sub-item/item of the Tariff and were not known commercially and in trade parlance as a different, distinct or new products. It was further held that in the Notification 174/84-C.E., there is no distinction between hot rolled or cold rolled rods or flats/bars and the processes relying on the earlier judgment of the Tribunal and the contention of the assessee was accepted. In the case of Resistance Alloys (I) Ltd. it was held that drawing of stainless steel electrical resistance wire of lesser guage from wire of higher guage did not amount to manufacture and further held that the processes of pickling and annealing etc. being processes preparatory to cold-drawing process and a new commodity does not emerge after application of these processes, as the item remains stainless steel electrical resistance wire only.
3. The learned DR supports the order and submits that these processes amount to manufacture as held by the learned Additional Collector.
4. On a careful consideration of the submission, we notice that the processes undertaken by the appellants in these cases are identical to the one which has been discussed in the ratio of the judgments notice above. Such process has been held to be not a process of manufacture as there is no change in the commodity and the commodity remains the same to be classified under same tariff heading. We also notice that the appellants have also filed declaration in 1984 and the show cause notice was issued only on 31-7-1987 hence it cannot be said that there is suppression of facts. In view of the citation, which covers the issue, we have to hold that there is no process of manufacture to bring into existence a new commodity. In that view of the matter, applying the ratio of the judgments cited, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.