TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both sides and considered the submission and find :- (a) The learned Advocate for the Appellants relies on the following case laws : (i) Jyoti Engineering Corporation [1989 (42) E.L.T. 100 (T)] (ii) Resistance Alloys (I) Ltd. [1996 (84) E.L.T. 507 (T)] (iii) Navasari Processing Industries [1996 (85) E.L.T. 386 (T)] (iv) Kanthal Bi Metals [1999 ( 106) E.L.T. 337 (T)] (v) Premier Winding Wires & Conductors [2000 (115) E.L.T. 698 (T)] confirmed by Apex Court [2000 (119) E.L.T. A242] (vi) Puranmal Bansal [2000 (122) E.L.T. 690 (T)] (vii) CCE, New Delhi v. Mithan Wires [1999 (34) RLT 252 (T)] (viii) CCE, Calcutta v. Indian Pin Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1999 (34) RLT 321 (T)] (ix) Technoweld Industries [2000 ( 39) RLT 397 (T)] (x) Vishvaman Industries v. CCE, Delhi [2001 (127) E.L.T. 155 (T)] = [2001 (42) RLT 724 (T)] confirmed by S.C. [2001 (131) E.L.T. A251 (S.C.) = 2001 (44) RLT F5]. To claim that they had never claimed the benefit of Notification 202/88 and hence question of denying the same does not arise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; In the cases from 2 to 5 above wires were being drawn into wires and the facts are different from and inapplicable to the facts of the present appeal. 6. Navsari Processing Industries [1996 (85) E.L.T. 386 (T)]. Herein the facts as recorded in para 2 were that "The appellants are engaged in the activity of reducing the gauge of Mild Steel Wire Rods. The Appellant buy wire rods of 8mm diameter. Thereupon these are drawn through machine and its gauge is reduced." It was held that reducing the gauge of mild steel wire rod was not manufacture. This case is not deciding the issue of whether the activity of rod being drawn into wire is manufacture, and cannot be an authority for such an issue. At best it can be an authority for deciding matters of drawing rods into rods. 7. India Pin Manufacturing Company [1999 (34) RLT 321]. The head note in the report is misleading and incorrect. The correct facts of this case were that aluminium rod was being made into aluminium welding electrodes. Reliance cannot be placed on this case to decide the present issue as the facts are very different. 8.&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellants in the present case." (b) "(i) It is also submitted that there is a catena of decisions on the concept of manufacture, which run contrary to the plea advanced by the appellants in this case : (ii) In SD Fine Chemicals [1995 (77) E.L.T. 49 (S.C.)] the Apex Court held that the meaning of the term 'manufacture' extends beyond its natural meaning, and reiterated the earlier decision in the case of Ujagar Prints : "one of the main tests evolved by this Court (for determining whether manufacture has taken place) is whether on account of the processes undertaken or employed by the assessee, the commodity so obtained is no longer regarded as the original commodity but is instead recognized as a distinct and new article that has emerged as a result of the processes." (iii) In JG Glass [1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)] the Supreme Court laid down a two fold test for manufacture : (i) whether by the said process the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist (ii) whether the existing commodity will serve no purpose but for the process. (iv) In Empire Industries [1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.)] which was confirmed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rods were drawn into MS Wire". We find that it is not the technology used, that should be determining exigibility of product, but the end use of such technology that should be relevant to be considered. It has been successfully demonstrated by the ld. SDR that a distinct new commercial entity having a tariff heading which came into existence, in this case, by the use of the technology in the premises of the appellant. The ld. DR relied upon a series of decisions in support of her contention that it amounts to manufacture. There is some force in the argument advanced on behalf of the revenue. Since Coordinate Benches have taken contrary view on the issue involved herein, it is appropriate that the issue has to be resolved by the Larger Bench. Accordingly we direct the Registry to place this matter before the Hon'ble President to constitute a Larger Bench to resolve the issue. The point to be considered by the Larger Bench is whether conversion of drawing of M.S rods into M.S Wires would result in new exigible goods coming into existence for the levy of duty under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In view of the Supreme Court's decision on manufacture submitted by the revenue and reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s held by Member (T) or appeal deserves to be allowed as per Member (J). Sd/-(S.S. Sekhon)Member (T) Sd/-(G.A. Brahma Deva)Member (J) 10. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The issue for decision in this appeal is whether drawing of M.S Wires from M.S Rods amounts to manufacturing, requiring the assessee to pay Central Excise duty. The Ld.Judicial Member has accepted the contention of the assessee that, that activity does not amount to manufacture. Based on this he has proposed that the appeal is required to be allowed. Ld. Member (T) is of the view that drawing of M.S wires amount to manufacturing and that the issue is required to be referred to Larger Bench since Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal had taken contrary views. 11. I have heard ld. SDR representing the revenue and ld. Counsel for the appellant. The reliance of the appellant is on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vishvaman Industries v. CCE, Delhi reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 155 (T) = 2001 (42) RLT 724 (T) wherein the Tribunal had held that drawing of wires does not result in manufacture. The revenue filed an appeal against this order and the same was dismissed by the ....