ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 40,70,944.86 confirmed against the manufacturer and a penalty of amount equal to duty imposed upon them, the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs upon the Director and Rs. 5 lakhs upon the Authorised Signatory of the Company, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage; hence after waiving the predeposit we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.
2. The duty demand has been confirmed on a quantity of 15297.250 kgs. of C.C.M.S. wire cleared without payment of duty and without accountal in the RG.1 Register during the period 26.6.97 to 5.3.98. The case of the department is inter alia based upon production registers, outward register and gate passes and the statement of the director of the company. The plea of the company that what was cleared were not final products but semi finished goods sent out or job work for return after processing, has been rejected on the grounds inter-alia that there was no evidence in the form of any Rule 57F (4) Challans etc. to substantiate such plea.
3. We have heard both sides. The appellants heavily relied upon the C.B.E.& C. Circular No. 720/36/2003-CX dt.29.5.2003 wherein the earlier circular dt. 16.2.2001 clarifying that the drawing of wire from wire rods would amount to manufacture, has been withdrawn on the basis of Supreme Court decision dismissing review petition filed by the Revenue in certain cases including that in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. wherein the Tribunal had held that such process does not amount to manufacture. Since the present impugned order does not record the process of manufacture carried out by the appellants, and there is no reply to the show cause notice, we are not in a position to straightaway apply the circular to the present case. Therefore in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the judgments of the Tribunal as upheld by the Supreme Court and as cited supra. He shall pass orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard and the appellant shall co-operate before the Commissioner by filing reply and appearing before him when he fixes dates for personal hearing.
4. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in Court)