2017 (1) TMI 369 - HC - Central Excise

Manufacture - Rubber lined Steel Tanks/Pipes - Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - it was already held in number of cases including assessee s own case that the very same process was not manufacturing - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Rubber lined Steel Tanks/Pipes manufactured by the petitioner should be treated as excisable goods under the Central Excise Act.
2. Whether there is any manufacture involved in the process of producing Rubber Lined Tanks and Tubes.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing Rubber products falling under specific sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act, received a show cause notice questioning the classification of Rubber lined Steel Tanks/Pipes as excisable goods. The petitioner cited precedents like the Supreme Court case of Tega India Ltd. and a Tribunal order in their defense, arguing against the existence of manufacturing. However, the Adjudicating Officer disregarded these arguments and deemed the products as new and excisable. The High Court noted the earlier Tribunal decision in the petitioner's favor, which had become final, and another CESTAT order reaffirming that no manufacturing was involved, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Tega India Ltd.

2. The High Court, considering the consistent legal precedents and the absence of manufacturing in the process, allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order. The Court did not impose any costs, indicating a clear stance in favor of the petitioner. The judgment effectively closed the matter, affirming that the production of Rubber Lined Tanks and Tubes did not constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act.