Shree Shiw Gouri Wire Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. heard both sides. the period of dispute in this case is 1996-97 to 1997-98. the department has alleged that the appellants have made clandestine manufacture and removal of aluminium wire out of aluminium wire rods without payment of duty. shri s.k. roychowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that apart from disputing the allegation of clandestine removal, the appellants have also contended that the process of drawing wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture and hence, no excise duty is payable on the same.in support of his contention, he cites the decision of the tribunal in the case of vishvaman industries v. c.c.ex, delhi-i 2002(127) elt 155 (tri.- del.) against which the department's appeal has been dismissed by the hon'ble supreme court, vide its.....

Judgment:
1. Heard both sides. The period of dispute in this case is 1996-97 to 1997-98. The Department has alleged that the appellants have made clandestine manufacture and removal of aluminium wire out of aluminium wire rods without payment of duty. Shri S.K. Roychowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that apart from disputing the allegation of clandestine removal, the appellants have also contended that the process of drawing wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture and hence, no excise duty is payable on the same.

In support of his contention, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vishvaman Industries v. C.C.Ex, Delhi-I 2002(127) ELT 155 (Tri.- Del.) against which the Department's appeal has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its decision reported in 2001 (131) ELT-A/151-SC. He also states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the same view in the case of C.C.Ex. v. Technoweld Industries .

2. In view of the cited decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that drawing wire from wire rods is not a process amounting to manufacture under the excise law, we are of the view that the impugned demand does not sustain. Accordingly, the impugned Order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants.