2014 (11) TMI 306 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturing activity or not - The jumbo rolls are first trimmed on their edges to remove torn portions and then printed in rotary printing machines with specific designs with the aid of non toxic, non-poisonous & specially formulated food grade liquid printing ink (purchased from manufacturers of those products). Thereafter the rolls are slit to the specified, required width. - Held that - alleged process does not amount to manufacture - Decision in the case of RGL. CONVERTORS 2003 (3) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI followed. - Decided in favor of assessee. Nevertheless, the primary and the lower appellate Authorities in this case, despite adverting to the judgment of this Tribunal and without concluding that the judgment had suffered either a temporal or plenary eclipse (on account of suspension or reversal of its ratio by any higher judicial authority), have chosen to ignore judicial discipline and have recorded conclusions diametrically contrary to the judgment of this Tribunal. This is either illustrative of gross incompetence or clear irresponsible conduct and a serious transgression of quasi-judicial norms by the primary and the lower Appellate Authorities, in this case. - appeal of the assessee allowed with costs of ₹ 10,000/- payable by Revenue to the appellant-assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of the assessee's appeal by the lower appellate Authority.
2. Classification of Printed Cork Tipping Paper (PTC) for excise duty.
3. Precedential authority of Tribunal judgments and adherence to judicial discipline by lower authorities.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was against the rejection of the assessee's appeal by the lower appellate Authority regarding an adjudication order dated 21.02.2013. The primary issue was the rejection of the assessee's appeal against the adjudication order related to the removal of excisable goods without remittance of duty and other alleged violations of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The dispute revolved around the classification of Printed Cork Tipping Paper (PTC) under CETH No. 48239014. The revenue asserted that the process undertaken by the assessee resulted in the emergence of a new product, PTC, which required duty liability. However, the Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including Lakshmi Packaging vs. CCE, to establish that the process did not amount to manufacture and was not exigible to excise duty.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the precedential authority of its judgments, stating that they are binding on all quasi-judicial authorities administering the provisions of the Act, 1944. The Tribunal criticized the primary and lower appellate Authorities for ignoring judicial discipline by disregarding the Tribunal's judgment without any valid reason. The Tribunal highlighted that its judgments have inherent precedential vitality, irrespective of higher forum ratification, and failure to adhere to such precedents amounts to judicial misconduct.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the concurrent orders of the primary Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 07.10.2013. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had adjudicated against the assessee contrary to the binding precedent, causing unnecessary litigation expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to pay costs of &8377; 10,000 to the appellant-assessee and communicated the order to relevant authorities for information.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.