1984 (10) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods after teeth-cutting operation are excisable and attract Central Excise duty.
2. Whether the process of teeth-cutting creates an identifiable machine part that is subject to duty.
3. Whether the show-cause notice for review issued by the Collector of Central Excise was time-barred.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Assistant Collector held that goods after teeth-cutting operation were not excisable, but the Collector of Central Excise disagreed, ordering payment of duty. The Appellants argued that further processes were needed to create an identifiable machine part. The Tribunal found that the products, as processed, were not ready for sale as machine parts without additional processes like heating and grinding. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were not machine parts attracting duty.

Issue 2:
The Appellants contended that the process of teeth-cutting did not amount to manufacturing machine parts. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Appellants were only carrying out job-work on raw materials supplied by customers. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods processed by the Appellants were not identifiable machine parts and were not fit for use without additional processes. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions to support its view that forgings and castings, even after machining, remain under specific categories not subject to duty.

Issue 3:
The Appellants argued that the show-cause notice for review was time-barred. The Tribunal clarified that the date of the order should be considered from the date of issuance, not the date of the order itself. Therefore, the show-cause notice was not deemed time-barred. However, since the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable on merits, it set aside the order and allowed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, holding that the goods processed after teeth-cutting were not machine parts attracting Central Excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized the need for further processes to create identifiable machine parts and referenced previous decisions to support its findings. The Tribunal also clarified the issue of the time-bar regarding the review show-cause notice, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.