2005 (12) TMI 471 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the process of Calendaring amounts to a process of manufacture.
2. Whether the Commissioner exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by considering additional processes beyond Calendaring.
3. Whether the Tribunal should grant a full waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery till the appeal's disposal.

Issue 1: Whether the process of Calendaring amounts to a process of manufacture.

The appellant was required to pre-deposit a certain amount for the appeal related to the process of Calendaring. The appellant argued that the Apex Court's decision in a previous case held that Calendaring is not a process of manufacture. The Tribunal also relied on this decision in another case. Despite these precedents, the authorities confirmed demands stating that Calendaring is a manufacturing process. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found that the show cause notice only mentioned Calendaring and not decatizing. Based on this, and in line with previous judgments, the Tribunal held that Calendaring alone does not constitute a manufacturing process. Consequently, the Stay Application was unconditionally allowed, with a full waiver of pre-deposit and a stay on recovery until the appeal's disposal.

Issue 2: Whether the Commissioner exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by considering additional processes beyond Calendaring.

The learned SDR argued that the Commissioner noted the presence of decatizing besides Calendaring, indicating a manufacturing process. However, the appellant pointed out that the show cause notice specifically mentioned Calendaring only, not decatizing. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the Commissioner went beyond the show cause notice's terms by considering additional processes. This discrepancy further supported the decision that Calendaring alone does not amount to a manufacturing process.

Issue 3: Whether the Tribunal should grant a full waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery till the appeal's disposal.

Given the Tribunal's finding that Calendaring is not a manufacturing process and the Commissioner exceeded the show cause notice's scope, the Tribunal granted a full waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery until the appeal's final disposal. The Tribunal directed the Revenue not to proceed with recovery until the appeal was resolved, with a scheduled hearing set for a specific date.

This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the manufacturing process of Calendaring, emphasizing the importance of aligning enforcement actions with the terms of show cause notices and established legal precedents.