2000 (3) TMI 1030 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the process of cold rolling of flat H.R. Coils amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act.
2. Whether the seized C.R. Coils were liable for confiscation and penalty imposition.
3. Whether the Appellants were required to record the production in the R.G.I register.
4. Whether the Commissioner's order was justified in considering the seized goods as fully manufactured.

Issue 1:
The Appellants argued that cold rolling of coils does not constitute manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, citing relevant case law such as C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Steel Strips Ltd. The Tribunal's decision in Jyoti Engg. Corpn. v. C.C.E. was also referenced to support the contention that the process of drawing wire of lesser gauge does not amount to manufacture. The Appellants further relied on decisions like C.C.E., New Delhi v. Mithan Wires and Kanthal Bimetals (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad to strengthen their argument. The Department, however, contended that cold rolling results in the creation of new products, distinguishing it from the mere reduction in wire diameter. The Department highlighted the distinct classifications for hot rolled and cold-rolled products in the Central Excise Tariff Act, emphasizing the implied manufacturing process in the separate headings. The judgment acknowledged the conflicting interpretations but left the issue open for further consideration.

Issue 2:
Regarding the confiscation and penalty imposition on the seized C.R. Coils, the Appellants contended that the goods were not fully manufactured at the time of seizure, as final quality control checks were pending. They provided evidence, including a Chartered Accountant's Certificate, to support their claim that all materials were properly recorded in their factory operations. The Commissioner's order was criticized for not adequately considering this evidence and for assuming full manufacturing based on market recognition and labeling of the goods. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to prove the goods were fully manufactured, leading to the decision to set aside the confiscation and penalty imposition.

Issue 3:
The Appellants argued that the R.G.I register recording requirement only applies to fully manufactured goods, with final quality control conducted before clearance. They explained that due to this process, there was typically a nil balance in their register. Additionally, the Appellants mentioned receiving H.R. Coils for job work under Rule 57F(2) without the need to record in the R.G.I register for such processed goods. The Tribunal considered these arguments in conjunction with the evidence provided, ultimately supporting the Appellants' position on the recording requirements.

Issue 4:
The Commissioner's order treated the seized goods as fully manufactured based on market recognition and labeling details on the coils. However, the Appellants contended that final quality control was necessary for complete manufacturing, supported by their record-keeping practices and a discrepancy in the quantity of C.R. Coils as per the Panchnama. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to substantiate the charge of full manufacturing, leading to the decision to set aside the order and allow the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the complexities surrounding the manufacturing process of cold rolling, the requirements for recording production in the R.G.I register, and the justification for confiscation and penalty imposition on seized goods. The decision emphasized the need for proper evidence and consideration of all relevant factors in determining the manufacturing status of goods and the applicability of penalties.