1995 (4) TMI 248 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against combined Order-in-Appeal
- Central Excise duty on Sawn Timber
- Applicability of Tariff Item 68
- Previous Tribunal and Court decisions
- Duty on manufactured items
- Appeal outcome based on legal precedents

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a batch of 11 appeals filed by M/s. Orissa Forest Corporation Limited against a combined Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. The appeals were related to the demand of Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68 on Sawn Railway Sleepers and other Sawn Timber, as well as penalties imposed on the appellant. The core issue was whether Central Excise duty was leviable on Sawn Timber. The Departmental Representative conceded that the matter was covered against the department by previous decisions, leaving the decision to the Bench.

The appellant referred to various Tribunal orders and judgments, including a Supreme Court decision, supporting the argument that Sawn Timber is not a manufactured item attracting duty. The Tribunal examined the submissions, records, and cited decisions. Notably, the Supreme Court in a previous case upheld that no new product emerges by sawing timber into different sizes. The Tribunal also considered earlier decisions by the Karnataka High Court and Tribunal orders in similar cases. The appellants provided copies of Tribunal orders, a High Court judgment, and an order-in-original supporting their position that sawing timber did not amount to manufacturing a new excisable product.

Relying on the legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in the Kutty Flush Doors case, which had been followed in various Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The impugned Order-in-Appeal demanding duty and imposing penalties was set aside based on the established legal principles that sawn timber did not constitute a manufactured item attracting Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68. The judgment highlighted the consistency in legal interpretations across different forums, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant in this case.