2013 (12) TMI 668 - AT - Central Excise

Process amounts to manufacture or not u/s 2(f) of Central Excise Act 1944 - Cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of plastic aluminium and paper Held that - Following CCE New Delhi-I vs. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (8) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - the slitting and cutting of tissue paper or aluminium foil does not amount to manufacture Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of plastic, aluminium, and paper amounts to manufacture.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute where the Revenue challenged an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the characterization of cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of plastic, aluminium, and paper. The Revenue contended that the process of cutting and slitting altered the utility of the product, making it marketable, and hence, amounted to manufacture. They argued that without these processes, the jumbo rolls could not be used effectively, transforming them into distinct new products. On the other hand, the respondents, who were importing and procuring jumbo rolls, asserted that the cutting and slitting did not constitute manufacture, relying on a previous decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case involving tissue paper and aluminium foil. The Supreme Court had held that slitting and cutting of jumbo rolls into smaller sizes did not amount to manufacture.

The Appellate Tribunal, in its analysis, referred to the Supreme Court's decision and applied its ratio to the present case. They concluded that based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of plastic, aluminium, and paper did not qualify as manufacture. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it. The judgment highlighted the importance of precedent and legal interpretation in determining the scope of manufacturing activities under the relevant laws.