TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeal (In Appeal No.E/60056/2013) No. 110-CE/APPL/NOIDA/2013 dated 17/05/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Noida and are having a common issue. Therefore, these appeals are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Wiring Harness which is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 85443030. For manufacture of Wiring Harness the inputs were insulated Electrical Wires & Terminals. During the process small cut pieces and rejected pieces of insulated wire were generated as scrap which were not usable. It appeared to Revenue that the waste and scrap of Electrical Wires was classifiable under Tariff Item No.85489000 and therefore, three Show Cause Notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner Division IV, Noida, the Order-in-Appeal No.53/08 date 28.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Noida and various submissions of the party putforth before the Adjudicating Authority and before the Commissioner (Appeals). Personal hearing was fixed on 16.09.2009, 17.09.2009 & 29.12.2009, but none appeared. A communication was received on 26.12.2009 that their representative was out of station and adjournment was sought. Fresh dates were given on 24.02.2010 & 25.02.2010 but again nobody attended the hearing on the given dates. Now the case is taken up for adjudication in De-novo proceedings. From the facts of the case, I find that the party were engaged in manufacture of wiring harness classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said small cut pieces and rejected pieces are discarded by them and sold as waste and scrap of wire at the available throwaway prices. As per them, there was no specific Tariff Heading in the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Hence, the same cannot be treated as excisable goods. They have also cited the following case laws:- 1. Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works Versus Union of India 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (SC) 2. Finolex Cables Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise 1998 (100) E.L.T. 517(T) 3. Tecumsh Products India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise 2004 (169) E.L.T. 55 (T) I find force in the contention putforth by the party. Insulated wire cannot be held to be electrical parts of machinery or ap....