2004 (9) TMI 531 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the rejected HDPE bags/sacks, after being subjected to cutting, stitching, and printing, still remain HDPE woven sacks without undergoing any change in name, character, or use.
2. Whether the process of cutting rejected woven sacks into smaller bags constitutes a manufacturing activity entitling Modvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant argues that the rejected HDPE bags/sacks, post-cutting, stitching, and printing, retain their original name, character, and use as HDPE woven sacks, asserting that no manufacturing process is involved. Citing relevant precedents, the Appellant contends that the end-products are distinct from the original inputs, thus not qualifying for Modvat credit. The Appellant relies on decisions such as Tega India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs to support their stance.

2. In response, the Respondent asserts that the process of cutting rejected HDPE woven sacks into smaller bags results in a new product, "HDPE BAG," distinct from the original woven sacks. By highlighting the functional differences between sacks and bags, the Respondent argues that the cutting, stitching, and printing activities amount to a manufacturing process. Drawing parallels with the Headway Lithographic Co. case, the Respondent contends that the transformation of rejected sacks into smaller bags constitutes a manufacturing activity, warranting the rejection of the appeal.

3. The Bench refers to the Headway Lithographic Co. case, where the Tribunal held that printing and cutting plain paper to create wrappers for biri amounted to a manufacturing activity, resulting in a new product with a different name, use, and character. Applying the principles from the aforementioned case to the present scenario, the Bench concludes that the process of converting rejected woven sacks into smaller bags constitutes a manufacturing activity. Consequently, the Bench upholds the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) and dismisses the appeal, as the rejected sacks transformed into carry bags represent a new product distinct from the original woven sacks.

4. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the case is disposed of accordingly.