ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. These two appeals filed by the revenue have the same facts and arise out of the same impugned order. They are therefore being disposed of together in this single order.
2. The respondent assessees were engaged in redrawing of copper and copper alloy tubes and pipes. Such activity was declared to be amounting to manufacture by virtue of Note 2 under Chapter 74 introduced on 27-9-1991. On that date these two respondents had fully finished stock of such redrawn tubes. Duty was demanded at the time of their clearance. These goods were later cleared without payment of duty. In two separate orders, duty was confirmed against these two assessees. In the single order-in-Appeal dealing with both the assessees, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that, where the goods were manufactured prior to the date of which the activity was deemed to amount to manufacture, should not attract levy of duty. On this ground he set aside the lower orders resulting in the present appeals.
3. We find this issue to be squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. VST Industries 1996 (83) E.L.T. 3. In this judgment it was held that the goods which were manufactured prior to levy of duty thereupon but which goods were cleared thereafter, such goods were not liable to excise duty. In this case, admittedly the contested goods were manufactured prior to the creation of the legal fiction whereby the activity of redrawing was equated to the activity of manufacture. The facts being such the cited judgment of the Supreme Court clearly applies and therefore confirmation of duty of excise and special excise duty was without basis of law. The impugned order is therefore upheld. The appeals from the revenue are dismissed.