Court rules duty demand time-barred; factory not deceptive. Duty liability valid under Rule 9. No evasion found.

The court ruled in favor of the factory, annulling the demand for duty payment as it was deemed time-barred due to the lack of deception or suppression. The factory successfully argued that the duty liability on the manufacture of bare aluminum wires up to 9 SWG for captive consumption was permissible under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, and there was no intentional evasion of duty. The court found that the factory had not willfully misled the department and had made sufficient disclosures, ultimately leading to the decision in their favor.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of duty liability on manufacture of bare aluminium wires up to 9 SWG for captive consumption, time bar on demand for duty payment, alleged suppression by the factory.

Duty liability on manufacture of bare aluminium wires: The case involved the manufacture of ACSR electrical conductors using bare aluminium wires up to 9 SWG for captive consumption. The factory argued that the process of manufacturing wires finer than 10 SWG involved continuous manufacturing stages, permitted under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules. The department contended that the factory misled them by not declaring the thicker wires, leading to duty evasion, citing relevant judgments to support their stance.

Time bar on demand for duty payment: The factory claimed that the demand for duty payment was time-barred as there was no suppression or willful misleading of the department. They referred to a specific paragraph from a previous judgment to support their argument. The Collector, however, alleged suppression by the factory regarding the manufacture of bare aluminium wires up to 9 SWG, which the factory contested by stating that they had declared EC wire in their classification list, which should have been sufficient disclosure.

Alleged suppression by the factory: The factory maintained that there was no deception or concealment on their part regarding the production of bare aluminium wires up to 9 SWG. They argued that the central excise officers should have been aware of the manufacturing process, where wires of finer gauges are produced sequentially from thicker gauges. The factory emphasized that they did not conceal any material fact and did not deceive the department intentionally to evade duty. The judgment ultimately ruled in favor of the factory, annulling the demand for duty payment as it was deemed time-barred due to the lack of deception or suppression.

---