1985 (5) TMI 220 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of demands of differential duty confirmed by Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector.
2. Classification of goods under Tariff Item 68 and payment of duty by the appellants.
3. Benefit of Notification No. 119/75 and its retrospective application.
4. Whether the process of engraving constitutes manufacture for excise duty purposes.
5. Decision on demands raised against the appellants.

Analysis:

1. The appeal questioned the legality of demands for differential duty amounting to specific sums, confirmed by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Appellate Collector. The demands were related to the period between 1-3-1975 to 29-4-1975.

2. The appellants classified the goods under Tariff Item 68 and paid duty based on job work charges for engraving on Copper Rolls. The issue arose when the Superintendent of Central Excise pointed out that duty was only paid on job charges without considering the value of the rolls, leading to the demand for differential duty.

3. The appellants argued for the benefit of Notification No. 119/75, which dealt with duty computation for job work. However, the Appellate Collector ruled that the demand was prior to the notification's effect and thus could not be applied retrospectively.

4. The debate centered on whether the process of engraving on Copper Rolls constituted "manufacture" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants contended that no duty should be charged as engraving did not amount to manufacturing. The Tribunal granted permission for this argument to be raised, emphasizing the need for the Revenue to prove the occurrence of manufacture.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal restricted the demands against the appellants to the first engraving of virgin copper print rolls, excluding subsequent engravings. This decision was supported by a previous ruling of the Tribunal regarding the definition of "manufacture" for excise duty liability.

6. In a separate opinion, one of the Members disagreed with delving into the question of whether engraving constituted manufacture, citing insufficient material and the fact that the issue was not raised before lower authorities. The focus was on the levy of duty for the specific period in question.

7. The judgment highlighted the distinction between primary engraving on virgin copper print rolls, considered incidental to manufacturing, and subsequent engravings, which did not amount to new goods or manufacturing. The decision resolved the demands while acknowledging the nuances of the excise duty law and relevant notifications.