Judgment: 1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 80/2004 (H-l) CE dated 30-8-2004. The Revenue has proceeded .to confirm the demand on the ground of shortages in the stock weighed on eye estimate. The appellants contended that the drawing of wire from wire rods does not amount to the process of manufacture. In this regard, the appellant has relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of C.C.E. v.Vishvaraman Industries 2002 (143) E.L.T. A262 (S.C.) wherein it was held that the process of drawing wire of lesser gauge from wire rods in coil form does not amount to manufacture. The learned Chartered Accountant submits that the Tribunal in the case of Micro Forge (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Rajkot 2004 (169) E.L.T. 251 (Tri.-Mumbai) and in the case of Continental Containers v. C.C.E., Jaipur has set aside the demands made based on the eye estimate of the stock and without physical weighment of stock. He submits that on both the points, the appeal is required to be allowed.
3. On a careful consideration of the matter, we notice that the appellants were carrying out the activities of drawing wire from wire rods. In terms of the Apex Court judgment and Board Circular No.720/36/2003.CX dated 29-5-2003 cited by the Revenue, the process of drawing wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture. Therefore demand of duty does not arise. With regard to the shortages of stock, it is seen from the impugned order that the Revenue has proceeded based on the stock weighed on eye estimate and without physical weighment. In view of the judgments' of the Tribunal, such method of verifying shortages of stock and in the absence of physical weighment, the appellant succeeds in both the points. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.