DEVIDAYAL ELECTRONICS AND WIRES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, inter alia, produce wire out of wire rods. For this purpose, the petitioners purchase duty paid iron and steel wire rods from which wire is drawn by the petitioners. Both, wire rods purchased by the petitioners as well as wire produced from such wire rods fall under Tariff Item 26aa (ia) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. This tariff item is as follows: "iron or steel products, the following namely : ia) Bars, rods, coils, wires. " it is the contention of the petitioners that both wire rods as well as wire fall under the same tariff item and that converting wire rods into wire does not amount to an activity of manufacture as defined in section 2 (f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

(2.) WE need not examine this contention on merit because in any event, by virtue of certain notifications issued by the Government of India, it is an accepted position that upto 19th od June, 1980, these items were exempt from payment of any excise duty. On 19th of June, 1980, by a Notification No. 113/80, the earlier exemption Notification No. 75 of 67 was withdrawn. Thereafter by another Notification No. 103 of 81 dated 7-4-1981, once again, these items produced by the petitioners were exempt from payment of excise duty.

(3.) ON 9-11-1981, a show cause notice was given to the petitioners by the respondents under section 11-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, calling upto the petitioners to show cause why excise duty amounting to Rs, 5,39,819- should not be recovered from the petitioners for the period 1-8-1980 to 6-4-1981. The show cause notice also referred to imposition of penalty as set out therein. The petitioners replied to the show cause notice. Thereafter, by order dated 25-9-1982, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 250/- on the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal on 23-12-1982. Along with the appeal, they also made an application for stay of recovery of duty. That stay application was rejected under an order conveyed to the petitioners on 19th of January, 1983. The present writ petition challenges the order imposing excise duty and penalty which is dated 25-9-1982 as also the order of 19th of January, 1983 refusing stay of the recovery of duty. We may add that during the tendency of the present petition, appeal proceedings were not stayed. We are informed that the appeal was in fact heard but till date, no order has been passed in the appeal filed by the petitioners although about seven years have passed since the appeal was filed. In these circumstances, we do not see why we should direct the petitioners to await the result of the appeal especially in view of the contentions which have been raised before us relating to the original show cause notice dated 9-11-1981.