TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sable and the Appellate Tribunal had also decided in the case of Krishna Wire Industries, Jaipur v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 984 that wire was a different product from the wire rod from which it was produced and process of obtaining wire from wire rod was manufacture. On 18-11-1987, the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Jyoti Engineering Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (42) E.L.T. 100, examined a case of MS wire and held that the activity of reducing thickness to 3 mm to 5 mm from wires of thickness of 6 mm to 8 mm was not manufacture. Despite the aforesaid decision, there was no dispute about the excisability of the SS wires produced by the manufacturers like the petitioners and they continued paying duties of excise on SS wires manufactured from SS rods and the Excise Department also never suggested that the decision in the case of Jyoti Engineering Corporation (supra) had any relevance or bearing to the excisability of SS wires from SS rods. 3. On 28-2-1986, the new Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into operation and the SS wires came to be classified under Heading No. 72.33 whereas the petitioners' raw material, namely, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng a declaration that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Technoweld Industries (supra) was not applicable to the petitioners' case as well as a declaration that the processes undertaken by the petitioner company for producing stainless steel wires from stainless steel hot rolled back wire rods is "manufacture" and that the petitioner company was legally obliged to pay duties on stainless steel wires manufactured by it from stainless steel rolled back wire rods. This Court, on 20-1-2004, passed a detailed interim order in the above referred special civil application and directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to pay excise duty on stainless steel wires manufactured out of stainless steel hot rolled black wire rods with all other consequential benefits and liabilities including Cenvat credit in accordance with the Rules. It was also clarified that pendency of the petition would not preclude the Central Board of Excise and Customs from considering the question whether a distinction was required to be made between the process of drawing wires from mild steel rod on the one hand and processing of making stainless steel wires fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claims for such accumulated credit for the goods exported during the period from July, 2003 to September, 2003 and April, 2003 to June, 2003 as regards its final products. Pursuant to the aforesaid refund claims, two show cause notices dated 25-6-2004 and 1-6-2004 respectively came to be issued to the petitioners proposing to reject the refund claims on various grounds. The aforesaid show cause notices culminated into orders-in-original No. 947/Ref/2004 and No. 948/Ref/2004 both dated 20-12-2004, whereby the refund claims came to be rejected as premature as well as devoid of any merits so far as rebate under Notification No. 41/2001, dated 26-6-2001 was concerned. Being aggrieved, the petitioner company filed two appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), the second respondent herein. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, the Central Government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment Bill, 2005 dated 9-5-2005 in the Parliament, thereby amending Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules with retrospective effect from 29-5-2003 (i.e. the day on which the C.B.E. & C. issued Circular No. 720/35/2003-CX, thereby clarifying that wire drawing was not "manufacture") and covering the entire peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 8-11-2003 and as such, the same is directly covered by the Amendment of 2006. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 8-6-2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 - Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) being contrary to the amended provisions of the Rules, is required to be quashed and set aside. 12. Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents was not able to dispute the aforesaid position of law. It was submitted that in the light of the amended statutory provisions, the petitioner company would be entitled to refund of the unutilized Cenvat credit provided it has paid the duty on the wire rods. 13. In the background of the aforesaid facts as well as the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is apparent that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Technoweld Industries (supra), holding that the process of drawing wires does not amount to manufacture. 14. Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006, as is relevant for the present, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be and always to have been, for all the purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done as if the amendment made by sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times. 16. The Schedule thereto indicates that Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules has been amended by inserting the second proviso thereto, which reads thus : "Provided that for the purposes of this rule, "assessee" shall include wire drawing unit, which has cleared the goods on payment of an amount equal to the duty at the rate applicable to drawn wire on the date of removal and on the value determined under relevant provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Provided further that the amount paid under the first proviso shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was duty paid by the assessee who removes the goods." 17. Thus, the persons like the petitioners are termed to be "assessee" within the meaning of Rule 16 of the Rules. Rule 16 of the Rules lays down that where any goods on which duty had been paid at the time of removal thereof are brought to any factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason, the assessee shall state the particulars of such rece....