9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 144 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - Activity of production of Marble Slabs / tiles from rough irregular marble slabs - whether the processes undertaken by the appellant amount to manufacture or not - Held that - Tribunal had occasion to examine a similar issue in the case of Oriental Trimex Ltd. (2009 (8) TMI 454 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). The Tribunal held that production of cut to size marble slabs and polished marble tiles from marble blocks and marble slabs do not amount to manufacture. We observe that note 6 inserted in Chapter 25 of the Tariff S.E. 01.03.2006 makes it clear prior to that date any person carrying out such process will not be subjected to excise. It was held that the processes specified in the said chapter note cannot be held classificatory in nature. The Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Anmol Granites (2006 (1) TMI 142 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR) held that the Hon ble Apex Court s decision in the case of Aman Marbles Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2003 (9) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) implies to the fact that cutting and polishing of the granites into slabs and tiles do not amount to activity of manufacture and such decision is binding on all Tribunal s in India. - impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly set aside the same - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Taxability under Central Excise Act 1944 - Whether processes amount to manufacture or not. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the taxability of the appellant under the Central Excise Act 1944 concerning whether the processes undertaken by the appellant amount to manufacture. Initially, an order in original dated 03.05.2002 was issued, which was set aside by the Tribunal on 31.03.2004, leading to fresh adjudication. Subsequently, the Original authority held that the demand against the appellant was not sustainable. However, on appeal by the Revenue, the Ld. Commissioner (A) set aside the original order and held that the processes undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture, resulting in excise duty liability. This decision was challenged by the appellant. In the appeal, the appellant argued that their processes were different from those in a previous case cited by the Department, emphasizing that they were cutting smaller marble blocks into irregular marble slabs using specific machinery. They contended that the processes were distinct from those in the cited case, resulting in different end products used for different purposes. The appellant also relied on a previous Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court judgment supporting their position. During the arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant referenced several decisions supporting the appellant's case. Additionally, it was argued that the introduction of note 6 to Chapter 25 Tariff indicated that the processes undertaken by the appellant before a specific date should not be considered as manufacture. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (A) and relied on a previous Tribunal decision. After hearing both sides and examining the appeal records, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner (A) had not adequately considered the differences in processes and end products between the appellant and the cited case. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where a similar issue was examined and concluded that the processes undertaken by the appellant did not amount to manufacture before a specific date mentioned in the Tariff. Based on the discussion and analysis, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was not sustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.
|
