2003 (4) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the process undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether duty is exigible on the goods processed by the appellants.
3. Whether the valuation and quantification of duty by the Commissioner is appropriate.
4. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellants is valid.

Issue 1:
The appellants argued that the process they undertook did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. They claimed that the purification process did not change the nature of the chemicals. However, the Tribunal found that the definition of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act includes any process specified in Section/Chapter notes of the Tariff Act. The Tribunal referred to various Supreme Court judgments establishing that any process creating a distinct and new article amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal held that the purification process undertaken by the appellants rendered the goods marketable, bringing them under the purview of Chapter notes describing manufacture. The tribunal emphasized that the marketability of the goods after purification is crucial, irrespective of whether the goods are actually sold in the open market.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on the valuation and quantification of duty. The Commissioner had determined the duty based on the values of comparable goods at the factory gate. However, the Tribunal found that this comparative valuation for goods cleared on a job work basis was not appropriate. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded it back for re-determination of the value and re-quantification of the duty and interest, if applicable.

Issue 3:
Regarding the penalty imposed on the appellants, the Tribunal decided that since the matter was being remanded back for re-determination of the quantum of duty, the penalty would be linked to the amount of duties re-quantified in the new proceedings. Consequently, the penalty imposed in the impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner was directed to re-determine the penalty based on the revised duty amount as per the law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by ruling that the process undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. It upheld the appellant's argument on valuation and quantification of duty, requiring a re-determination. The Tribunal also directed the Commissioner to provide the appellants with copies of all relevant enquiries and to re-determine the penalty based on the revised duty amount.