Captive consumption of aluminium wires does not attract a second excise levy when duty has already been paid on conductors.

Conversion of aluminium wires into aluminium conductors was treated as not warranting a second excise levy where the intermediate and final products fell under the same tariff sub-item and duty had already been collected on the conductors. The Tribunal applied its earlier rulings that captive consumption of wires for making conductors did not justify fresh duty on the wires when the same duty burden had already attached at the final stage. Notification No. 187/83 did not change that position for the prior period, and the demands before 9-7-1983 were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether conversion of aluminium wires into aluminium conductors amounted to manufacture of a new product under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (ii) whether aluminium wires cleared for captive consumption for manufacture of conductors were liable to excise duty when duty had already been paid on the final conductors; and (iii) whether Notification No. 187/83 dated 9-7-1983 could be denied for the period prior to that date.

Issue (i): Whether conversion of aluminium wires into aluminium conductors amounted to manufacture of a new product under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The conversion process involved drawing and stranding of duty-paid wire rods into wires and then into conductors. The Tribunal treated the matter as governed by its earlier decisions holding that, even where a distinct product may emerge, the decisive question was whether the same duty was being demanded again under the same tariff head. The process did not justify a second levy of the same duty on the intermediate wires.

Conclusion: The conversion did not justify a separate excise levy on the intermediate wires where duty under the same tariff sub-item had already been collected on the conductors.

Issue (ii): Whether aluminium wires cleared for captive consumption for manufacture of conductors were liable to excise duty when duty had already been paid on the final conductors.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier rulings that where both the intermediate wires and the final conductors fell under the same tariff sub-item and the final product had already suffered duty, the department could not exact the same duty again on the wire used captively in making the conductor. The levy would amount to taxing the same article twice under the same heading.

Conclusion: The aluminium wires cleared for captive consumption were not separately chargeable to duty once duty had been recovered on the conductors.

Issue (iii): Whether Notification No. 187/83 dated 9-7-1983 could be denied for the period prior to that date.

Analysis: Since the Tribunal held that no second levy was permissible on the captive-consumed wires in the light of its earlier decisions and the existing duty structure, the question of denying the notification did not alter the outcome against the department. The demands for the earlier period could not be sustained on the reasoning adopted.

Conclusion: The demands for the period prior to 9-7-1983 were not sustainable against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because excise duty could not be recovered again on aluminium wires captively consumed for making conductors when duty had already been levied on the final conductors under the same tariff entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the intermediate and final products fall under the same tariff sub-item and duty has already been collected at one stage, the department cannot levy the same duty again on the captively consumed intermediate product merely because further manufacture took place.

---