9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1721 - HC - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture or not - manufacture of Harrison brand locks - parts/raw material for assembling locks used to be supplied by Assessee to labourers, who are paid wages for such assembling and assembled locks are received and process of polishing, nickeling, branding etc is undergone at the premises of Assessee - liability of Central Excise Duty. Held that - Had it been a case of mere assembling, polishing, branding and placing MRP labels, the view taken by Tribunal may not have required any interference, but in the present case, the specific raw material for bringing a lock into existence is being supplied by Assessee. The Artisans or other units assemble all these goods in order to give shape to a lock which throughout remain property of Assessee since raw material belong to him and the ultimate finishing is done at Assessee s premises. Mere fact that labour charges are paid by Assessee does not mean that artisans can not be said to have undergone process of manufacture under the Assessee. Assessee in the case in hand is a manufacturer of lock and not that it is engaged in only furnishing and branding. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the Assessee not a manufacturer of "Harrison" brand locks. 2. Whether the definition of 'manufacturer' in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, includes the activities referred to in question 1. 3. Whether the Tribunal's judgment is sustainable without reversing the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise. 4. Whether the judgment in CCE, Baroda Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala is applicable to this case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the Assessee not a manufacturer of "Harrison" brand locks: The Tribunal held that the Assessee was engaged in processes like branding, polishing, affixing MRP, and packing locks, which do not constitute manufacturing as they do not result in bringing a new commodity into existence. However, the High Court found that the Assessee supplied raw materials and parts to artisans or other industries for assembling locks. The artisans were paid labor charges and the assembled locks were subjected to further processes like electroplating, riveting, and engraving, which required power. The Court concluded that the Assessee controlled the entire process of manufacturing locks, and thus, should be considered a manufacturer. 2. Whether the definition of 'manufacturer' in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, includes the activities referred to in question 1: The Court examined the definition of 'manufacturer' under Section 2(f) of the Act and relevant case laws. It emphasized that 'manufacture' implies bringing into existence a new and different article with a distinctive name, character, or use. The Court cited various precedents, including Union of India Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills and Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Associated Stone Industries, to support the view that the Assessee's activities, which transformed raw materials into marketable locks, constituted manufacturing. 3. Whether the Tribunal's judgment is sustainable without reversing the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise: The Tribunal's judgment was found unsustainable as it did not reverse the Commissioner's findings, which were based on substantial evidence. The Commissioner had detailed the manufacturing process and the Assessee's role in it, concluding that the Assessee was a manufacturer. The High Court held that the Tribunal ignored these facts and took an erroneous view. 4. Whether the judgment in CCE, Baroda Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala is applicable to this case: The Tribunal applied the judgment in CCE, Baroda Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala, but the High Court found the facts of the present case different. In Khambhatwala, the activities did not result in a new product, whereas in the present case, the Assessee's activities resulted in the creation of new marketable locks. Therefore, the High Court held that the Tribunal's reliance on Khambhatwala was misplaced. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and restored the Commissioner's order, holding that the Assessee was indeed a manufacturer of "Harrison" brand locks and liable to pay excise duty.
|
