2011 (3) TMI 1202 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - Revenue challenged order wherein the lower authorities after holding that the activity undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacture and given them the benefit of cum-duty - Held that - On perusal of the order passed by this Tribunal in the earlier period of the assessee s own case, wherein it has been held that the activity stated herein above does not amount to manufacture. Therefore no hesitation to hold that in this case also that the activity undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture, therefore, no question of any duty arise. Thus when there is no question of any duty, therefore, the benefit of cum-duty does not arise at all - Revenue s appeal is to be rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the impugned order by the Revenue and the assessee.
2. Determination of whether the activity undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacture for the purpose of Central Excise duty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved challenges against the impugned order by both the Revenue and the assessee. The assessee contested the order on the basis that the lower authorities had deemed their activity as manufacturing, while the assessee argued that the said activity does not qualify as manufacture. The Revenue, on the other hand, appealed against the decision granting cum-duty benefit to the assessee, which was being contested by the department before the Tribunal.

2. The case revolved around the assessee, a manufacturer of excisable goods, who also engaged in processing duty paid dyes and obtaining Crylin medium by diluting duty paid acrylic emulsion. The department considered these activities as manufacturing processes, thereby holding the assessee liable to pay Central Excise duty on the goods produced. The primary issue for determination was whether the activities conducted by the assessee could be classified as manufacture under the Central Excise laws.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties, noting that in a previous ruling related to the assessee's case, it had been established that the activities in question did not amount to manufacture. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the current activity undertaken by the assessee also did not meet the criteria for being classified as manufacturing. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no duty liability arose in this case, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal with any consequential relief and the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The cross objection was also disposed of accordingly.