9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 935 - AT - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture or not - diluting of raw material namely, STYROFAN D 623 and APCOTEX TSN 100 with water and then packing the resultant material in different packages - manufacture of Sika Latex and Sika Latex Power or not - scope of manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The appellant could able to demonstrate that characteristics and chemical composition of the raw material namely, STYROFAN D 623 AP and APCOTEX TSN 100 continued to remain same even after addition of water to the said raw materials as it has not lost its original character, chemical composition, use etc. after application of the process of dilution with water. Besides, by addition of the water to the said raw materials, there could be some change in the quality and the efficiency in use of the product but that cannot be the sole criteria for considering dilution as a process of manufacture . Reliance placed in the case of Servo Med Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (5) TMI 292 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that The syringe and needle retains its essential character as such even after sterilization and no manufacture taking place. Thus, it can safely be inferred that the process of dilution of the raw materials STYROFAN D 623 AP and APCOTEX TSN 100 cannot be called as a process of manufacture. Consequently, the product Sika Latex and Sika Latex Power also not chargeable to excise duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the addition of water to raw materials results in the manufacture of new products chargeable to excise duty. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Goa, regarding the process of diluting duty paid 'Styrene Butadiene Latex' purchased from suppliers. The appellant diluted the raw materials with water, packed them as 'SIKA LATEX' and 'SIKA LATEX POWER,' and sold them. The issue was whether this dilution process constituted 'manufacture' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and if excise duty was applicable. Show-cause notices were issued, demands were confirmed, and appeals were filed against the decisions. 2. The appellant argued that dilution with water did not create a new product with distinct characteristics, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills. They contended that the chemical properties and characteristics of the raw materials remained unchanged after dilution, and the end products were merely diluted versions. The appellant also referred to previous judgments and a decision by the CESTAT Kolkata Bench regarding a similar issue. 3. The Revenue supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), while the Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records. The main issue was whether the addition of water to the raw materials constituted 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether excise duty was chargeable on the resultant products. 4. The Tribunal applied the legal test laid down by the Supreme Court in Servo Med Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise to determine if the dilution process amounted to manufacture. It categorized processes based on changes in the goods, emphasizing that if the goods remained essentially the same after the process, there was no manufacture. Applying this test, the Tribunal concluded that the dilution of raw materials did not result in a new product with different characteristics or uses, and hence, did not constitute manufacture. 5. Referring to the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that the dilution process did not transform the raw materials into a new product with distinct characteristics. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the dilution of raw materials with water did not amount to manufacture, and the products 'SIKA LATEX' and 'SIKA LATEX POWER' were not chargeable to excise duty. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals.
|
