2005 (12) TMI 420 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of cutting M.S. Plates amounts to manufacture.
2. Application of small scale benefit exemption notification.
3. Imposition of penalties for alleged suppression.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Activity of cutting M.S. Plates
The Appellant and the Revenue both appealed against the impugned order where the adjudicating authority considered the cutting of M.S. Plates by the Appellant as manufacturing. The Commissioner limited the demand to the normal period of limitation due to the Appellant seeking clarification from the Revenue on whether their activity constituted manufacturing. The Tribunal referred to the case law where similar activities were considered manufacturing, such as the conversion of plain M.S. Plates into profiles. Based on precedent, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the Appellant's activity amounted to manufacture, leading to the confirmation of the duty.

Issue 2: Small Scale Benefit Exemption
The Commissioner allowed the benefit of small scale benefit exemption notification to the Appellant. However, the Revenue appealed against this decision along with the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal found that since the Appellant sought clarification from the Revenue regarding the manufacturing status of their activity, there was no suppression with intent to evade duty. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that there was no merit in the imposition of penalties.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in the judgment delivered by S.S. Kang, Vice-President, confirmed that the cutting of M.S. Plates by the Appellant constituted manufacturing. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the Appellant's actions did not involve suppression with intent to evade duty, leading to the rejection of the penalties. Both appeals were ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.