2016 (5) TMI 565 - HC - Central Excise

Whether assembly of different parts of decorative lamp shades and chandeliers amounts to manufacturing - Appellant was engaged in fitting of various lamp shades and chandeliers procured from different sources which are re-assembled and thereafter sealed with its own logo and code number. Held that - Tribunal held that procuring the manufacturing items and packing them with its own brand name by the assessee, does not amount to creation of a new product which may invite the duty. The question involved is no longer res integra and stands answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of TI. Diamond Chain Ltd. Versus Commissioner 2000 (3) TMI 1041 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , which has been earlier followed by different High Courts and the Tribunal in the instant case. The Tribunal has further held that the demand raised by the Revenue was otherwise also barred by limitation and that the appellant cannot take shelter behind proviso to Section 11-A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for it was fully aware of the existence of the assessee s unit and its activities. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
1) Setting aside of Order-in-appeal by CESTAT ignoring statements of Supervisor/Manager and other suppliers.
2) Setting aside of Order-in-appeal by CESTAT without considering suppression of facts.
3) Setting aside of Order-in-appeal by CESTAT without considering findings of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding manufacturing activity.
4) Setting aside of Order-in-appeal by CESTAT without considering findings of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding purchase and clearance of parts.

Analysis:
1) The case involved the appeal by the revenue challenging the decision of CESTAT to set aside the Order-in-appeal dated 18.1.2006. The revenue raised questions regarding the statements of Supervisor/Manager and other suppliers, emphasizing that the procured items were components for finished goods. However, the Tribunal found that the assembly of components did not constitute manufacturing, as clarified by the Apex Court's precedent. The Tribunal also noted that the demand was time-barred, and the appellant was aware of the activities of the assessee's unit.

2) Another issue raised was the alleged suppression of facts by the party to evade payment of Central Excise duty. The Tribunal, however, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that assembling different parts did not amount to a new manufacturing process. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant could not rely on Section 11-A(1) proviso for protection, as they were aware of the assessee's activities.

3) The CESTAT's decision was also challenged for not considering the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the manufacturing activity. The Commissioner had highlighted that the party did not clear individual parts but marketed new items with distinct identities, constituting manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. However, the Tribunal reiterated that assembling components did not amount to manufacturing under established case law.

4) Furthermore, the CESTAT's decision was questioned for disregarding the Commissioner (Appeals) findings on the purchase and clearance of parts by the party. The Commissioner had noted that the party purchased individual parts and cleared complete items, which the CESTAT did not adequately consider. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no grounds for further adjudication.