1985 (6) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether recoating of rubber on metal rollers amounts to a manufacturing process.
2. Whether the respondents are entitled to a refund claim for the duty paid on recoating of rolls and re-rubber lining of tanks and vessels.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether recoating of rubber on metal rollers amounts to a manufacturing process:

The primary question addressed was whether the process of recoating rubber on metal rollers, including grinding and polishing, constitutes a manufacturing process under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise rejected the respondents' refund claims on the grounds that recoating involved the preparation of a rubber compound, rolling it on the rolls, vulcanizing, and finally grinding and polishing, which resulted in a new marketable product: a rubber roll. This process was deemed to fall under the definition of 'manufacture' as it transformed a metal roll into a rubber roll, which are distinct and different goods.

The respondents argued that recoating or re-rubber lining is merely a reconditioning process and does not create a new product with a distinct name, character, or use. They cited the Supreme Court decision in P.C. Cheriyan v. Mst. Barfi Devi, which held that retreading old tyres does not amount to manufacture. However, the Tribunal found that the process described by the respondents themselves indicated a complete transformation from a metal roll to a rubber roll, which is a commercially different article. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that recoating and re-rubber lining are manufacturing processes as they result in a new and distinct commodity.

2. Whether the respondents are entitled to a refund claim for the duty paid on recoating of rolls and re-rubber lining of tanks and vessels:

The respondents filed refund claims for the duty paid on the recoating of rolls and re-rubber lining of tanks and vessels, arguing that these processes do not constitute manufacturing activities. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) initially accepted this contention, stating that recoating or re-rubber lining does not create goods of a different taxable description. However, the Government of India, exercising its powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, issued a show cause notice to set aside this order, arguing that the process involved a series of operations resulting in the production of new goods.

The Tribunal, upon reviewing the processes involved in both manufacturing new rubber rollers and recoating old ones, found that the processes were essentially the same. The Tribunal noted that the essence of manufacture is the transformation of an object into another for the purpose of making it marketable. Since recoating resulted in a commercially different article, the Tribunal concluded that it constituted a manufacturing process. Consequently, the respondents were not entitled to the refund claims as the duty paid was for a manufacturing activity.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal ruled that recoating of rubber on metal rollers amounts to a manufacturing process under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it results in a new and distinct product. Therefore, the respondents, M/s. Lathia Industrial Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd., were not entitled to the refund claims for the duty paid on the recoating of rolls and re-rubber lining of tanks and vessels. The appeal was allowed accordingly.