Wire Drawing Process Not Manufacturing: Excise Duty Exemption Upheld

The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Vishvaman Industries, holding that the process of drawing wire of lesser gauge from wire rods in coil form does not amount to manufacturing for Central Excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized that excisability is determined by the manufacturing process rather than classification under the Tariff, citing precedents such as Indian Pin Mfg. Co. and Jyoti Engg. Corporation. As the process of cold drawing wire was found not to constitute manufacturing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Order.

---

---

Issues involved: Whether the process of drawing wire of lesser gauge from wire rods in coil form amounts to manufacture so as to attract levy of Central Excise duty.

Summary:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Vishvaman Industries to determine if drawing wire of lesser gauge from wire rods in coil form constitutes manufacturing for Central Excise duty. The Appellant argued that the process of cold drawing wire from iron/steel coils purchased from suppliers does not amount to manufacture, citing precedents such as Shri Puranmal Bansal v. CCE, CCE, Calcutta-II v. Indian Pin Mfg. Co., and Premier Winding Wires & Conductors v. CCE. The Respondent, however, referred to Trade Notice No. 48/95, stating that drawing wire from wire rods qualifies as manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act due to their distinct classification under the current Tariff.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the raw material received was indeed in coil form, and the process of drawing wire by reducing sectional area does not amount to manufacture, in line with previous decisions like Indian Pin Mfg. Co. and Jyoti Engg. Corporation. The Tribunal disagreed with the Respondent's argument regarding the classification under the old Central Excise Tariff, emphasizing that excisability is determined by the manufacturing process rather than classification. As the impugned Order was deemed sufficient and in accordance with established precedents, the Tribunal set aside the Order and allowed the appeal.

---