Manufacture by wire stranding and extended limitation upheld where distinct commercial identity and suppression of clearances were found.

Stranding galvanised iron wire into GSS wire was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct article with different strength, utility and identity, and the resulting wire was fit for stay-wire use. GSS wire was held classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68, not Tariff Item 26AA, since no specific entry covered it. In job-work clearances, duty was held payable on the total value of the finished goods, not merely on job charges, as the notification relied upon was inapplicable. As the goods were cleared without licence, records or intimation, suppression was found and the extended limitation period applied; the demand was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether stranding GI wire into GSS wire amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise law; (ii) whether GSS wire is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68 rather than Tariff Item No. 26AA; (iii) whether the duty liability on job-work clearances by GIC is to be computed on the total value of the goods and not merely on job charges; (iv) whether the demand is barred by limitation or the extended period applies.

Issue (i): Whether stranding GI wire into GSS wire amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: The process involved stranding, twisting and tying together galvanised wires on a stranding machine. The resulting GSS wire was found to be different from GI wire in strength, utility and commercial identity, and was fit for stay-wire use whereas the input wire was not. Applying the settled test that manufacture occurs when a new and different article having a distinct name, character or use emerges, the conversion was treated as a manufacturing process within Section 2(f).

Conclusion: The process amounted to manufacture and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether GSS wire is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68 rather than Tariff Item No. 26AA.

Analysis: GI wire and GSS wire were treated as separate commodities. The Tribunal held that GSS wire was not covered by Item No. 26AA or any other specific tariff entry and that stranded galvanised steel wires, on the facts, fell under the residuary item. Reference was also made to the Tariff Advice supporting that view.

Conclusion: GSS wire was correctly classifiable under Item No. 68 and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the duty liability on job-work clearances by GIC is to be computed on the total value of the goods and not merely on job charges.

Analysis: GIC was treated as the manufacturer for the job-work clearances made from raw material supplied by Arkay. The value of the finished goods cleared to customers was held to be the relevant assessable value, and the benefit of the notification relied upon for restricting duty to job charges was found inapplicable.

Conclusion: Duty was payable on the total value of the goods and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the demand is barred by limitation or the extended period applies.

Analysis: The goods were cleared without licence, without statutory records and without intimation to the excise authorities. On these facts, suppression of production and clearance figures was found, attracting the extended period under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A. The demand was therefore held to be within time.

Conclusion: The demand was not time-barred and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and connected findings, and rejected both appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture where it brings into existence a commercially distinct article having a different name, character or use, and suppression of manufacture and clearances without licence or statutory records justifies application of the extended limitation period.

---