2009 (2) TMI 551 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether coating of pipes amounts to manufacture prior to 14-5-2003?
2. Whether the appellant crossed the total exemption value of SSI exemption Notification?
3. Whether the matter should be remanded for further consideration?

Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing curtain knobs and procuring cut-to-size pipes, coating them, and clearing them as curtain rods. The Revenue contended that coating the pipes amounts to manufacture, leading to classification under a specific heading. The appellant argued that coating of pipes did not constitute manufacture before 14-5-2003, citing a Supreme Court decision. The period in question was 2002-2003 to 2003-2004, with a show cause notice issued in 2007. The appellant asserted that coating of pipes amounted to manufacture only from 14-5-2003 onwards. The Tribunal, considering the submissions, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for further consideration, allowing the appellant to raise additional grounds.

2. The appellant claimed SSI exemption for the curtain knobs but faced demands due to exceeding the total exemption value. The Revenue argued that the clearance of coated pipes along with knobs fell under a specific classification, making the appellant liable to pay duty. The appellant contended that if only the pipes were considered post 14-5-2003, they would fall within the exemption limits. However, the fact that most pipes were aluminum coated was not raised earlier before the authorities. The Tribunal, acknowledging this, remanded the matter for the appellant to present this information to the original adjudicating authority for a comprehensive review.

3. After considering the arguments presented by the appellant's advocate and noting the failure to raise certain points earlier, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for a fresh review by the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal clarified that they were not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but emphasized the need for a thorough consideration of all aspects, including the precedent decisions of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal on the disputed issue. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.