2004 (4) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether vulcanized rubber sheets in the form of linings bonded to metallic surfaces of equipment are excisable or not.

Analysis:
The appeal revolves around determining the excisability of vulcanized rubber sheets bonded to metallic surfaces of equipment. The activity involves manufacturing unvulcanized rubber sheets and adhesive, which are then used to line equipment. The rubber lining is bonded to the metal surface using an autoclave maintained at a specific temperature. The rubber lining becomes inseparable from the metal surface due to vulcanization. The appellant argues that the rubber lining can be easily removed, but the Commissioner's order confirms the strong bonding post-vulcanization. The non-marketability of the bonded rubber lining is crucial, as inseparability implies lack of marketability. The appellant's reliance on a court decision is countered by the respondent's reliance on a Tribunal decision affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal found that the non-marketability aspect was not refuted and applied a precedent involving polyurethane foam formation to the current case. In the previous case, the Tribunal ruled that in situ formation of polyurethane foam did not constitute "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. Drawing a parallel, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the lower authority regarding the vulcanized rubber sheets. The Tribunal rejected the appeal based on the precedent and lack of substantiation regarding the applicability of a different court decision. The absence of an in situ process in the court case cited by the appellant further weakened their argument.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the vulcanized rubber sheets bonded to metallic surfaces of equipment are not excisable based on the non-marketability aspect and the precedent involving in situ formation of materials.