Per S.L. Peeran - All the above captioned appeals raise a common question, arising from same set of facts and circumstances and hence they are all clubbed for a common hearing and disposal as per law

2. In all these appeals, the appellant have been issued with show-cause notice during the year 1990 demanding various amounts of excise duty, and in all the cases mostly for the period from 20.5.88 to 27.6.89, in respect of manufacture and clearance of 'CTD bars twisted after hot rolling' (popularly known as "Tor Steel" in trade parlance, without due observance of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and its Rules, with regard to obtaining licence, filing classification list etc. The department, as usual, alleging contravention of the provisions of Rule 9(1), 52 (A), 53 read with Rule 226, Rules 173B,?173F, 173 G, , 74 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The department has stated that the said goods ,v e classifiable under chapter sub-heading 7214.90 of CET Act, 1.985; which road-, as follows :

2. (i) The appellants do not deny the production of this product but have taken a stand that the process of conversion of hot rolled Bars which are allowed to cool and thereafter, it is twisted on the twisting machine, and thus such an activity does not amount to the process of manufacture and that no new commodity or separate goods arises, notwithstanding the fact that the product is known as CTDB as or by the trade name TOR STEEL; which are used in reinforced concrete. It is their plea that

(ii) The, process of twisting is merely a finishing operation and not a manufacturing operation,

(iii) It is stated by them that prior to 1.8.83, the product fell under Tariff item 26 AA - Iron or steel products. The Tariff sub-item 26 AA (ia) read as it stood as follows :

"(ia) Bars, rods, coils, wires, joists, girders, angles, other than slotted angels, channels, other than slotted channels, tees, beams, zeds, trough, piling and all other rolled, forged or extruded shapes and sections, not otherwise specified."

(ii) It is stated that in this description, there is no distinction as to whether the bar could be twisted or not. Thus, the CTD Bars were classified under item 26 AA (ia) only. It is stated that the Central Board of Excise Customs had also issued a tariff advice No. 50/78 dt. 13.9.78 clarifying that twisted steel rods used in reinforced concrete would be classifiable as rods under Item 26AA (ia). It was further clarified in the said Tariff Advice that if these were made out of duty paid steel rods then they would not be subjected to excise duty again under item No. 26AA (ia). It is further stated that from 1.3.75, a new tariff item No. 68 was introduced dealing with all other goods not elsewhere specified. Then a question arose as to whether the CTD Bars could fall under Tariff Item 68 or not. Therefore, the Central Board of Excise Customs in their letter dt. 23.9.75, clarified that cold twisted steel bars made by twisting of bars (either plain or ribbed) by machines were covered by T1 26AA and hence they do not fall under TI68. Therefore, the appellants had submitted that CTD Bars were not subjected to any duty.

3. It is further stated that from 1.8.83, the Tariff items 2 5,26 26 AA was merged and a new Tariff item 25 was introduced. In sub item (9) of TI 25 bars and rods were covered. The CTD Bars were brought under item No. 25 (9) (ii). It is also stated that notification No. 208/83-CE was also issued exemption goods falling under sub-item 6(ii) (iii), 7 (ii), 8,9 (ii) and M of the said item. It is pleaded that this notification clearly stated that the condition for availing the exemption is that no credit of the duty paid on the inputs should have been taken under Rule 56A. It had also mentioned that all th