TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (5) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ector held that during the period from 1-4-1979 to 16-3-1981, the appellants clandestinely removed aluminium wire and bolts without payment of duty and also committed other violations of the Central Excises and Salts Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by their failure to take out a central excise licence and to maintain the statutory records and submit the prescribed returns. The Collector called upon the appellants to pay the central excise duty and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on them under rule, 173 read with rules 9 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, acting as the appellate authority, gave the benefit of time-bar to the appellants so far as the period prior to 17-9-1980....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of their plea, the appellants cited Explanation V contained in this notification which states that for the purposes of computing the aggregate value of clearances under this notification, the clearances of any specified goods, which are exempt from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon by any other notification, was not to be taken into account. The appellants maintained that they manufactured steel wire from duty-paid steel rods and since such wires were fully exempt under Notification No. 206/63-C.E., their clearances of steel wire should not be added to arrive at the aggregate value of their clearances in the preceding financial year. When it was brought to their notice that benefit of the Explanation V could not be extended to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....position of penalty was not justified and, in any case, after the Board's findings at the appeal stage to the effect that the charge of clandestine removal had not been established and that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of time-bar for a big chunk of the original period of demand, it was excessive. 3. The Department's representative maintained that steel wire rod and steel wire were two distinct commercial products. Wire rod was a hot-rolled product for conversion into wire while wire was a drawn product. Regrading Delhi High Court judgment in Sulekh Ram's case, he cited a later judgment of Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Erode (1978 E.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Other Sections - 10.00 mm width across, Max (d) Flat : Width 2.5 mm, Max Thickness 6.3 mm, Max (e) Half-round 12.5 mm diameter, Max" 5. The appellants say that wire rod and wire are one and the same thing. But we find that aforesaid I.S.I. definitions do not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otification No. 206/63-C.E., it ceased to be excisable goods, we find that this notification gave exemption to certain iron or steel products (which included steel wire also) if they were made from :- (i) duty-paid fresh unused re-rollable scrap, (ii) duty-paid semi-finished steel like blooms, billets etc., and (iii) old and used re-rollable scrap. None of the above three source materials included wire rods which was the source material used by the appellants for making wires. This notification was, therefore, not applicable to the appellants. It became applicable to them only with effect from 7-4-1981 when the amending Notification No. 103/81-C.E. added a fourth source material in it, namely, ot....