2017 (1) TMI 1070 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - activity of coating pipes/tubes - duty paid in excess erroneously - Refund claim - Held that - the subject activity of coating of pipes/tubes amounts to manufacture and there is no erroneous payment of central excise duty in excess in the present case - the Commissioner (Appeals) held In relation to the Pipes & Tubes of Heading 7304, 7305 and 7306 the process of coating with cement or polyethylene or other plastic materials shall amount to manufacture - refund claim rightly rejected - appeal rejected - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 for excise duty paid erroneously in excess.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ?11,56,518.00 by M/s Aneri Construction. The appellant claimed that the excise duty paid erroneously in excess was by the job worker, M/s Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd., Bharuch, for coating pipes/tubes, which they argued did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944. However, after analyzing the facts and submissions, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection. The Commissioner noted that the process of coating pipes/tubes with cement or plastic materials amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise Tariff. The introduction of chapter note 5 under chapter 73 clarified that such processes were considered manufacturing activities. The Commissioner emphasized the importance of deeming provisions in statutes, citing legal precedents to support the decision.

The Commissioner found that the processes undertaken by M/s Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd., Bharuch, indeed amounted to manufacturing as per the deeming provision in chapter note 5 under chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant's reliance on case laws and circulars was deemed inapplicable as they did not involve products covered under a similar deeming provision. The Board's Circulars cited by the appellant were related to different issues not relevant to the present case. The Commissioner concluded that there was no basis for allowing the refund claim as the duty was rightly paid by the job worker. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's findings and upheld the rejection of the refund claim, deeming the appeal without merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the refund claim, as the processes undertaken by M/s Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd., Bharuch, for coating pipes/tubes were considered manufacturing activities under the Central Excise Tariff. The legal precedents and deeming provisions in the statute supported the decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.