1996 (11) TMI 378 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:

1. Whether lacquering and printing of aluminium collapsible extruded tube constitute a process of manufacture prior to the amendment to Section 2(f) and Tariff Item No. 27(f) by Section 45 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980?

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-1-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector had opined that lacquering and printing of aluminium collapsible extruded tubes did not amount to a manufacturing process before the amendment to Section 2(f) and Tariff Item No. 27(f) by Section 45 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980. The Collector held that the amendment was only prospective and not retrospective.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing on 21-11-1996. The appellants/Revenue were represented by Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, while no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Universal Cans & Containers Ltd. Despite the absence of the respondents, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the matter on its merits due to its age and the prior notice served to the respondents.

Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, contended that the issue was settled by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Deepak Extrusion v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, where it was held that lacquering and printing transformed plain tubes into a new commodity with distinct features. This decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd., emphasizing the inclusion of charges for printing and lacquering in the assessable value of tubes.

Based on the precedents set by the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had erred in his decision. The impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed.