Per Lajja Ram : These are two appeals filed by (1) M/s General Industrial Corporation, Fazalganj, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'GIC') and (2) M/s Arkay Wires (P) Ltd., Pandunagar, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Arkay'). Both these appeals originate from the same order-in-original and involve common issues. They were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.

2. M/s G.I.C. were engaged in the manufacture of Galvanised Stranded Stay Wire (GSS Wire) from Galvanised Iron (GI) Wire, falling under Item No. 26-AA (ia) of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'). The GI Wire was supplied by Arkay, and GIC manufactured GSS Wire from such GI Wire, and received job charges from Arkay. M/s Arkay Wires (P) Ltd. had also manufactured GSS Wire on their own account. It was alleged that GSS Wire was classifiable under Item No. 68 of the Tariff. It was found that the appellants had not applied for Central Excise Licence and did not account for their production in the statutory records. The value of their clearances had exceeded the exemption limit but no Central Excise duty leviable on the excisable and dutiable goods was paid, and the said goods were removed in violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur who adjudicated the matter imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on GIC, and demanded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,19,776.40. He also appropriated the security of the Bond amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- towards payment of redemption fine in respect of the seized goods. Except for the orders made with regard to the seized goods, the proceedings against Arkay were otherwise dropped.

3. Both the cases were posted for heading on 26/9/94 when Sh. A.N. Sharma, Consultant appeared for the appellants. Sh. K.K. J ha, SDR represented the Respondents.

4. Sh. A.N. Sharma, the ld. Consultant submitted that stranding of GI Wires to make them GSS Wire would not amount to the process of manufacture. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Tribunal's decisions in the cases of (1) Aluminium Industries Ltd., Kerala Vs. CCE, Cochin - 1987 (30) ELT-442 (T); (2) Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. CCE, Meerut -1987 (32) ELT-798 (T); (3) CCE Vs. Andhra Industrial Works - 1991 (56) ELT- 838 (T) and (4) Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Anantpur Vs. Ranka Cables (P) Ltd. Cuddapah - Tribunal's Order No. 156-160-86/B1 dt. 11/3/ 86 in appeals No. E/2451 and 3091-3094/84-B1. He also stated that other findings of the adjudicating authority were also not correct, and pleaded for the acceptance of both the appeals.

5. Sh. K.K. Jha, the ld. SDR submitted that the process to which the GI Wire was subjected to produce GSS Wire was a process of manufacture. He explained the process of stranding, and referred to the difference in name, character and use of the product obtained after stranding of GI Wires. He stated that the goods obtained after stranding i.e. GSS Wire was in the nature of a 'rope' which is obtained by putting a number of plies together by grouping of the strands. In the decisions relied upon by the appellants there was no finding that there was no process of manufacture in the production of GSS Wire from GI Wire. The Id. SDR relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1990 (49) ELT-326 (SC). In particular, he invited attention to paras 5 and 6 of that judgement. The ld - SDR submitted that the decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellants were contrary to the Supreme Court's decision. Reliance was also placed on the Tribunal' s decision in the case of Dipen Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE -1992 (62) ELT-430 (T) wherein it has been held that slitting and cutting of jumbo rolls of video magnetic tapes into pancakes amounted to manufacture. Reference was also made to the Tribunal's decision in the ca