1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally a Revision Application to Government of India against order in appeal dated 23-4-1981, passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, is whether copper strips, falling under Tariff Item No. 26A of Central Excise Tariff, after insulation, should be subjected to duty again under Tariff Item No. 68 ibid.
2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) restricted the demand against the appellants to a period of six months but, on merits, found against the appellants. Aggrieved appellants filed revision application to Government of India which is now the appeal before us.
3. We have heard Shri Ravinder Narain, Advocate, for the appellants, and Shri H.L. Verma, Sr. D.R. with Shri S.C. Rohtagi, Jr. D.R., for the respondent, Shri Ravinder Narain relied on Bombay High Court decision in Shakti Insulated Wires (Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1982 (10) E.L.T. 10 (Bom.) and the Tribunal decision in M/s. Devi Dayal Non-Ferrous Industries (Private) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 1984 (16) E.L.T. 537 (Tribunal). In the said decision the Tribunal following the Bombay High Court decision (supra), held that copper strips, after insulation, would not be liable to duty again under T.I. 68.
4. Shri H.L. Verma agreed that the Bombay High Court decision fully covered the issue involved in the present appeal, but an attempt was made to argue that the Bombay High Court, in coming to a decision in the said case, had not taken note of the leading decisions : in the D.C.M. case A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 791 and South Bihar Sugar Mill case A.I.R.1968 S.C. 922. It was also argued that the Revenue had filed appeal to the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court decision in the Shakti Insulated Wires case. Shri Verma, while agreeing that the Bombay High Court decision fully covered the issue in the present appeal, stated that no concession be attributed to the respondent with respect to the appeal.
5. There is no dispute that the Bombay High Court decision duly covers the issues involved in this appeal and would be applicable to the same.
The Bombay High Court decision has held that insulation would not make strips liable to duty again under T.I. 68 C.E.T. The decision, as already stated, has been followed by the Tribunal in another case.
6. Relying upon the Bombay High Court decision, we hold that copper strips falling under T.I. 26-A (2), after insulation, would not be liable to duty again under T.I. 68 C.E.T. The demand against the appellants is set aside and appeal allowed.