ORDER
Harish Chander, President
1. M/s. Ramakant Wire Industries, Hyderabad have filed an appeal being aggeieved from the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of ACSR and AAC Conductors. For the manufacture of the said conductors bare aluminium wire which is the subject matter of the proceedings and which is drawn from the aluminium rods are used and the specification of the said wires are 10 SWG and less than 10 SWG. These wires are drawn from the duty paid aluminium rods and are used to manufacture conductors and the appellants have duly paid the duty on the conductors. In the present matter the Revenue authorities have demanded duty on the said bare aluminium wires less than 10 SWG after issuing a show cause notice in December 1981, and the period involved is October 1978 to February, 1982. A reply to the show cause notice also has been given. The Assistant Collector had rejected the appeal and the appellants having not satisfied with order passed by the Assistant Collector filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) and he has confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved with the said order the appellants have come up with an appeal before the Tribunal. Shri V.J. Sankaram, the learned advocate, has appeared for the appellants and pleaded that the appellants manufacture ACSR and AAC conductors falling under Item No. 33B(ii) of the erstwhile tariff schedule and for the manufacture of conductors the appellants have to use the wire which is being drawn from the aluminium rods. He pleaded that no duty is chargeable for such aluminium wires. He also argued that the matter is fully covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Anantapur v. Ranka Cables (Pvt.) Ltd., Cuddapah vide Order No. 156-160/86 dated 11-3-1986. He pleaded that this decision of the Tribunal was followed by the Tribunal in the latter decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Shri Balaji Cable Industries Anantapur reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 77 and also again by this Bench in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Andhra Industrial Works vide Order No. E.115-119/91-B1, dated 9-5-1991 reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 838 (Tri.). He pleaded that since the facts are similar there is no reason why the appellants should not be given the benefit. Shri S.K. Sharma, the learned JDR, who appears on behalf of the respondent relies on Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. He pleaded for the rejection of the appeal.
2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are not disputed and they are similar to the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Andhra Industrial Works vide Order No. E.115-119/91-B1, dated 9-5-1991 reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 838 (Tri.). Para numbers 7, 8 and 9 from the said decision are reproduced below:
“7. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and examined the relevant records. It is seen that in this case the main points that arise for considerations are :-
(i) Whether conversion of aluminium wires into aluminium conductors results in the manufacture of a new product within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and
(ii) Whether aluminium wires when cleared for captive consumption for the manufacture of conductors were chargeable to duty
(iii) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 187/83 dated 9-7-1983 was not admissible in respect of demands for recovery of duty on aluminium wires cleared for captive consumption prior to 9-7-1983.
8. We find that these points are fully covered by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Anantapur v. Ranka Cables (Pvt.) Ltd., Cuddapah (Order No. l56-160/86-B1 dated 11-3-1986).The relevant extracts from this decision are reproduced below :-
“The appeal does not say how the cables are assessed. The Appellate Collector held they were assessed under item 33B(ii). This is the same sub-item under which the department wants to assess the bare wires. It is evident that the wire whether in the conductor or singly is sought to be taxed twice with the same duty, 33B(ii). This is not lawful. It may even be true as a new product distinct from the wire. But since the duty the department wants to exact is the same one, under the same head, [335B] (should be 33B-Ed.) (ii), it cannot do so. If the two products are covered by the same heading and pay the same duty, no amount of manufacture or change will attract the same duty again.
It appears duty has been recovered on the conductor under item 33B(ii). Therefore, the same duty cannot be exacted again, on the wire which went into the conductor. And the department has done rather well. It can take the same duty only once and it did so at the most favourable point, the conductor point, when the value had gone up by reason of the stranding etc. etc. that product the cable conductor. Had it taken duty at the wire point, it would have collected duty on a lower value, and once it had done so would have disqualified itself from collecting the same duty, 33B(ii), once again on the cable conductor made of wire which had already paid that very same [335B)1 (ii) duty.
Reference has been made to Rule 9 and Rule 49. In the view taken by us further discussion on this aspect become redundant”
9. It is also seen that in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Shri Balaji Cable Industries, Anantapur 1987 (29) E.L.T. 77 (Tri.) the Tribunal had arrived at a similar finding. In that case even when the demands for recovery of duty on the intermediate product pertained to the period prior to the issue of Notification No. 187/83 dated 9-7-1983 on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. U.O.I. 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (SC) it was held that even if it was assumed that aluminium wires were by themselves a finished item of electric wires and cables and they were a distinct product from AAC and ACSR conductors, since the proforma credit procedure under Rule 56A applied to Item 33B and admittedly both aluminium wires and conductors fell under the same tariff sub-item 33B(ii) ‘All others’ it was not permissible for the department to collect and retain the full duty twice under the same sub-item. On the ratio of these decisions it has to be held that duty having been recovered at the final stage on aluminium conductors manufactured by the respondents, no duty was recoverable on aluminium wires manufactured and removed for captive consumption for the manufacture of conductors”.
3. In view of the facts and circumstances are similar to that of the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Andhra Industrial Works, we follow our earlier decisions. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The Revenue authorities are directed to give the consequential relief to the appellants.