TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (6) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....classifiable for duty under T.I. 33B or T.I. 25 of the erstwhile Excise Tariff. By the Impugned order a demand of Rs. 23,66,863.41 was demanded from the appellants and a penalty of Rs. One lakh imposed on them. 2. The matter was heard on 12-12-1996 when Shri N.R. Khaitan, ld. Counsel appeared for the appellants and Shri M. Jayaraman, ld. JDR represented the Department. 3. The appellants are manufacturers and dealers in steel wires by cold drawing process. On the basis of intelligence collected by the Department a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants on 27-3-1987. They were charged with contravention of various provisions of the Central Excise Rules and for engaging in the manufacture of telephone wires, i.e. MS gal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lecommunication wire. The appellants contended that their wires could not fall under T.I. 33B since T.I. 33B related to copper, aluminium and such electrolytic grade metal cables as had been clarified by the Board's letter, dated 29-8-1964. Their product being iron and steel wire and also wires made out of steel, was covered under Section 26AA(IA). They also relied on the evidence given by the Deputy General Manager of Telecommunication Department for the purpose. 6. Collector in the impugned order had observed that in one of the contracts entered into by the appellants dated 19-10-1981 with the Posts and Telegraph Department, Calcutta, the words "for telephone wire" appeared. After extracting the description of electrical wires and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral engineering purposes and not for telecommunication wire. He also relied on the Tribunal's decision in General Industrial Society Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2056 in which the Tribunal had held that if the Tariff Item was unambiguous it is not to be interpreted in accordance with ISI glossaries or Dictionary meanings which then have no relevancy for the purpose. The appellants' contention that as per the conditions of contract the Post and Telegraph Department was to bear excise duty was also not accepted on the ground that Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 states that the duty of excise was on the manufacturer and production of goods and it is the manufacturer who is liable to pay C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....) to underline the fact that the appellants had no malafide or intention to evade duty and in such circumstances, extended period or penalty would not be justified. 8. Ld. JDR appearing for the Department referred to Paragraph 4.4 of the impugned order to draw attention to the fact that the appellants were very much aware of the fact that they were supplying telephone wires to the Post and Telegraph Department as their own contracts Nos. W-266/81/64-65/35, dated 9-11-1981 clearly indicated the item as "telephone wire". As regards Notification No. 197/79 ld. JDR contended that even uninsulated wires were covered by Item No. 33B(IA). He also referred to the Apex Court decision rendered in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Limited v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 per M.T."   11. "33B. Electric wires and cables, all sorts, not otherwise specified :- (i) Insulated wires and cables of copper, aluminium or other metals and alloys, whether sheathed or unsheathed, the conductor of any core of which, not being one specially designed as a pilot core, has a sectional area not exceeding 1.5 square millimetres in the case of copper, or not exceeding 2.5 square millimetres in the case of aluminium or of not more than equivalent conductivity as of copper in the case of other metals and alloys. ad  20 per cent valoren (ii) All others 10 per cent ad valorem." 12. The appellants contention is that their product which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in their contract dated 19-10-1981 agreed to supply goods "telephone wires". Exemption Notification No. 197/79 covered only goods falling under T.I. 26AA. Once the goods answer the description and become classifiable under T.I. 33B no benefit of Notification No. 197/79 would be permissible. Reliance placed by the ld. Counsel on Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, supra, does not appear to be correct since the appellants cannot claim with any justification that the steel wires they had contracted to supply to the telephone Department would not be used for the purposes of telecommunication and electric current would not pass through such wires irrespective of the ISI standards. Shri Khaitan, ld. Counsel ha....