2015 (3) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturing activity or not - activity of cutting the plastic films and sheets into required shape as per customer's requirement - Held that - The activity undertaken by the appellant is cutting of plastic sheets/films purchased from the market into required shapes and sizes such as annular foam ring, rounds and squares as required by the customers. Merely cutting a sheet or film into required shape of size does not result in bringing into existence any new product and therefore, there is merit in the contention of the respondent that the activity undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture . The lower appellate authority has also come to the same conclusion. - No infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate authority - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand confirmation
- Imposition of penalty
- Activity classification as "manufacture"

Duty Demand Confirmation:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal confirming a duty demand of Rs. 40,046 along with interest and penalty. The learned appellate authority set aside the order of the adjudicating authority based on limitation grounds and the argument that the activity undertaken did not amount to "manufacture." The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

Imposition of Penalty:
The Revenue contended that the cutting of plastic films and sheets into required shapes by the appellant constituted "manufacture," justifying the duty demand. The Additional Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated these grounds during the proceedings.

Activity Classification as "Manufacture":
The Tribunal considered the nature of the activity, which involved cutting plastic sheets/films into various shapes as per customer requirements. It was argued that this cutting process did not result in the creation of a new product, thus not meeting the threshold for "manufacture." The lower appellate authority concurred with this view, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the Revenue's appeal and uphold the decision that the activity did not amount to "manufacture."

The Tribunal found no fault in the lower appellate authority's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, deeming it lacking in merit. The cross objection was also addressed and disposed of during the proceedings.