Same excisable commodity principle bars second levy where drawn wire does not become a new product

Wire drawn from thicker wire remained classifiable as the same excisable commodity under Item 26AA(ia) of the Central Excise Tariff, so no fresh duty could be levied on the processed goods. The tariff in force did not recognise a separate category of wire rod for the relevant period, and the later introduction of a wire rod and wire distinction could not be used to justify retrospective assessment. Excise manufacture requires emergence of a new excisable commodity; because the drawn wire did not become a distinct product, the same goods could not be assessed again and duty was not payable a second time.

---

---

Issues: Whether wire drawn from thicker wire remained the same excisable commodity under Item 26AA(ia) of the Central Excise Tariff and could be subjected to duty again.

Analysis: The drawn wire was held to remain within the same tariff description of wire. The tariff at the relevant time did not recognise a separate category of wire rod, and once wire had already suffered assessment, the same goods could not be assessed again under the same description. The distinction between wire rod and wire was introduced only later, and the later tariff arrangement could not justify a levy for the earlier period. Manufacture, for excise purposes, required emergence of a new excisable commodity, which was not present here.

Conclusion: The drawn wire was not liable to fresh excise duty under the same tariff description, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: Duty could not be demanded a second time on the drawn wire, as no new excisable goods came into existence under the then-prevailing tariff.

Ratio Decidendi: Where processing does not bring into existence a new excisable commodity and the article remains classifiable under the same tariff entry, excise duty cannot be levied again on the same goods.

---