2004 (12) TMI 435 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of cost of cutting and slitting in the assessable value of Polyester film.
2. Interpretation of Chapter Note 10(A) of Chapter 48 regarding cutting and slitting as manufacture.
3. Jurisdictional authority for demanding duty in case cutting and slitting is considered manufacturing process.

Analysis:
1. The appeal questioned whether the cost of cutting and slitting should be added to the assessable value of Polyester film cleared from the factory to the depot where it was sold after processing. The appellants, manufacturers of Polyester film, argued that the cutting and slitting at the depot should not impact the assessable value. The Assistant Collector included transportation costs to the depot in the assessable value, but the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, citing that cutting and slitting were post-clearance operations and should not affect the value, referencing a Tribunal decision in a similar case.

2. The Revenue contended that Chapter Note 10(A) of Chapter 48 considers cutting and slitting as manufacturing processes, enhancing marketability. They argued that the case law referred by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not applicable. The Respondent's Advocate highlighted various cases supporting their stance, emphasizing that if cutting and slitting were deemed manufacturing, the duty should be demanded by the jurisdictional officer at the depot, not the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore.

3. The Tribunal examined the arguments and noted that Chapter Note 10A of Chapter 48 specifically refers to thermal paper, not Polyester film, hence not directly applicable. Considering the goods were cleared in Jumbo roll form from the factory, the Tribunal held that the value should be assessed based on the form in which they were cleared. Even if cutting and slitting were deemed manufacturing, the proper authority for duty demand would be at the depot. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision not to include the cost of cutting and slitting in the assessable value, ultimately dismissing the appeal based on this finding.