- (1.) This is an appeal against the order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal dismissing the appeal filed before it by the present appellant.
(2.) The assessee does job work. It is supplied electric wire whereon it winds cotton or fibreglass yam and returns the wire so wound to its customers. It was called upon to pay excise duty on the electric wire so wound under the terms of Tariff Item 33-B. The assessee contended that the process carried out by it did not amount to manufacture and no new product emerged. The Assistant Collector of central Excise held that the process brought into existence a new and a different item, i. e. , insulated wire. The insulated electric wire was itself a complete manufactured product. Bare copper or aluminium wire had a separate name. Thus, the insulated wire was a new substance distinguishable from bare electric wire. The process of covering the bare copper or aluminium wire amounted to an incidental or ancillary process of bringing into existence a new product having a different name, character and use. Therefore, the process was a manufacturing process, and the assessee was liable to pay excise duty. The Assistant Collector turned down the alternative contention of the assessee that it was a manufacturer and, therefore, entitled to exemption under a notification (No. 83 of 1983 dated 1/3/1983.
(3.) The assessee preferred an appeal before the Collector of central Excise (Appeals) , Bombay. He allowed the appeal. In his order he observed that it was a fact that the assessee did not draw wire in its factory. There was no dispute over the fact that the assessee brought into its factory bare electricwire, copper or aluminium, for the purpose of covering it either with cotton yarn or fibreglass yam, without making any changes in the sectional areas. On the basis of these facts, the Collector (Appeals) found force in the assessee's submission that the covering of the bare copper and aluminium wire received by it from its customers with cotton or fibreglass yarn did not constitute a process of manufacture, no new product emerged and no excise duty was payable. The Assistant Collector, the appellate order noted, had not brought any evidence on record to controvert the case of the assessee.;