2000 (5) TMI 901

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to Feb. 1994. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of aluminium wires out of the aluminium ingots received by them under DEEC scheme. Aluminium wire which is the final product is exempt from duty under the provisions of Not. No. 180/88-CE dated 13-5-1988. The present duty has been confirmed against the applicants on the wire rods which the Department alleges that aluminium wire rod made out of aluminium ingots has further been used in the manufacture of aluminum wire. Appellant's contention duly represented by Shri B.N. Chattapadhaya, learned Consultant is that these aluminium wire rods are not marketable inasmuch as the length of the wire rods which emerge in their unit in a continuous process is to the tune of 15' to 25'. In sup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had been clearing their final product without making any debit entry in Modvat accounts. From this, the Revenue should have presumed that wires in question are being manufactured out of non-duty paid ingots. As such he submits that demand in question is barred by limitation. 2. As regards the financial position, Shri Chattapadhaya draws our attention to the latest balance sheet in the year ending as on 31-3-1999, the profit made by the applicants before taxation is to the tune of Rs. 4,04,790.71 and earlier to that there were losses. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri J.M. Kennedy, learned JDR for the Revenue submits that the two issues raised by the appellants are in favour of the Revenue. He submits that wire rod is a spec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....length. These certificates as such, do not help at this stage. We also observe that the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that the wire rods which emerge in their factory are not capable of being marketed on account of any reason whatsoever. As regards the limitation we find that the letter shown to us which was written to the Asstt. Collector in 1989 does not help the applicants much. It is a fact that the classification list was filed by the appellants in respect of the wire rods but it was not categorically mentioned that the wire rods being manufactured by them would be used captively in further manufacture of aluminium wires. We also note that the statutory records were not being maintained by them. As such we do not find....