9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1294 - AT - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction - process amounting to manufacture or not? - cutting, grooving of the Aluminium sheet to make Aluminium composite panels amounts to manufacture of a distinct product commercially known as different. (ACP) - running sheets of ACPs are cut into smaller Sizes either of rectangular or square plates - with or without grooving. Held that - the Hon ble High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I VERSUS PUSHPADEEP ENTERPRISES 2010 (4) TMI 842 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , has allowed the appeal of the Revenue and held that cutting, grooving of the Aluminium sheet to make Aluminium composite panels amounts to manufacture of a distinct product commercially known as different. order of the Tribunal is set aside and the orders of the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is restored by answering the substantial question of law in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. Further, the decision of the Karnataka High Court has been challenged by the appellant and the appeal is also pending before the Hon ble Apex Court but stay has been rejected. Therefore in the absence of any stay in favour of the appellant, the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka which is the jurisdictional High Court is binding on us - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the process of cutting, grooving, and routing of aluminum sheets to make composite panels amounts to manufacture? 2. Was the refund granted to the appellant erroneously and demandable under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 3. Is the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka binding on the present case? Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal revolved around whether the process of cutting, grooving, and routing of aluminum sheets to create composite panels constitutes manufacturing. The appellant argued that the process did not alter the product's identity, hence not amounting to manufacture. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka determined that the process resulted in a distinct product commercially known as different, thus qualifying as manufacturing. The High Court's decision was binding, and the appeal was dismissed in favor of the Revenue. Issue 2: Regarding the refund granted to the appellant, it was contended that the amount refunded was not duty and could not be termed as an erroneous refund. The appellant also challenged the validity of the show-cause notice. However, the adjudicating authority demanded the refund under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and imposed interest on the amount. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this decision, citing the High Court's judgment as the basis for dismissing the appeal. Issue 3: The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which held that the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture, was pivotal in the present case. Despite the appellant challenging this decision and the matter being pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the absence of a stay in favor of the appellant meant that the High Court's decision was binding. Consequently, the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order, dismissing the appeal based on the High Court's ruling. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore upheld the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which deemed the process of creating composite panels as manufacturing. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decision was considered binding in the absence of a stay order.
|
