Appellants' Wire Processing Deemed "Manufacture" under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal held that the process undertaken by the appellants, involving drawing wires and lacquering them with enamel, amounted to "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it resulted in a distinct product suitable for commercial purposes. The appellants were allowed to raise additional grounds in the appeal, specifically related to the manufacturing process. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to reassess duty liability, considering the loss factor and scrap generated during the process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant materials on record.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the process undertaken by the appellants amounts to "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the appellants can raise additional grounds in the appeal.
3. Evaluation of the quantification of duty liability and the allegation of clandestine removal of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the process undertaken by the appellants amounts to "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act, 1944:

The appellants contended that their process of drawing wires from wire rods and lacquering them with enamel does not amount to "manufacture" as per the Central Excise Act, 1944. They argued that the product remains essentially the same, merely reduced in gauge. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Technoweld Industries* and *Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd.*, which held that such processes do not result in a new product with a distinct identity.

The respondent countered that the process described by the appellants, which includes heating and lacquering with enamel, results in a commercially different product. The Tribunal noted that the law requires a process to result in a new, distinct commercial commodity to be considered "manufacture." The Tribunal referred to *Union of India & Others v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. & Others* and *Empire Industries Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Others*, emphasizing that a new product with a distinct identity and commercial value must emerge from the process.

The Tribunal concluded that the combined process of drawing wire and lacquering with enamel results in a distinct product suitable for commercial purposes, thus amounting to "manufacture" under the Act. Therefore, the appellants' challenge on this ground was not sustained.

2. Whether the appellants can raise additional grounds in the appeal:

The appellants sought to introduce an additional ground, arguing that their process does not amount to "manufacture." They cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Technoweld Industries*, which was delivered after the proceedings before the lower authorities. The respondent opposed this, citing *Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. New Delhi* and *Bharatbhai B. Gala v. Commissioner of C. Ex. Ahmedabad-I*, arguing that the process resulted in a commercially different product.

The Tribunal allowed the appellants to raise the additional ground, stating that the issue goes to the root of the matter and can be decided based on existing records without needing additional facts. Thus, the miscellaneous application to raise the additional ground was allowed.

3. Evaluation of the quantification of duty liability and the allegation of clandestine removal of goods:

The appellants contested the quantification of duty liability, arguing that the authorities ignored the loss of raw material during the manufacturing process. They cited technical literature indicating a 6% loss in weight during the process. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) based their conclusions on the difference in weight between the raw material and the final product, without considering the loss factor or scrap generated during the process.

The Tribunal noted that the burden of proving clandestine removal rested on the department, which had relied on the weight difference. However, the technical opinion indicating a 6% loss in weight was not disputed by the department, nor was it considered by the authorities in their quantification. The Tribunal found that the authorities failed to account for the loss factor and scrap, which was recorded in the RG-I register.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to reassess the duty liability, taking into account the loss factor and scrap. The adjudicating authority was directed to complete this exercise expeditiously and by 31-12-2010, after hearing both parties.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, permitting the appellants to raise additional grounds and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for reassessment of duty liability, considering the loss factor and scrap. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough evaluation of all relevant materials on record.

---