1989 (11) TMI 55 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality and validity of orders Annexures 'G' and 'H' regarding classification of galvanising of strips as manufacturing activity under Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of metallic flexible tubes, obtained cold rolled strips for manufacturing tubes. The strips were galvanised to prevent oxidation before use. The Central Excise Superintendent opined that galvanising was a manufacturing process under the Act, leading to the requirement of a manufacturing license. The petitioner disputed this classification, asserting that galvanisation did not create a new substance. The petitioner appealed the orders of the third and fourth respondents, which upheld the manufacturing classification.

2. The petitioner argued that galvanisation did not alter the essential character of the steel strips, which remained steel even after the process. The petitioner contended that the galvanised strips should still be classified under Item 26AA as steel strips. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that galvanisation constituted a manufacturing process, creating a new article.

3. Referring to Entry 26AA of the Act, the Court examined the relevant tariff items for iron and steel products. The petitioner drew attention to a Supreme Court judgment regarding galvanised steel tubes, where it was held that galvanisation did not change the fundamental nature of the product. The Court considered this precedent in evaluating the petitioner's case.

4. After analyzing the arguments and the nature of the galvanisation process, the Court concluded that the activity carried out by the petitioner did not result in the creation of a new substance or a different article. It was determined that the galvanised steel strips retained their original character as steel strips even after the process. As a result, the Court quashed the orders of the third and fourth respondents and allowed the petitioner's appeal.

5. The Court granted interim relief to the petitioner, allowing the discharge of the Bank guarantee furnished for duty payment. The petitioner was directed to apply for a refund of any duty paid to the Department, with a deadline set for submission. The Department was instructed to decide on refund applications within a specified timeframe in accordance with the principles outlined in the judgment.

6. Ultimately, the Court made the rule absolute, ruling in favor of the petitioner and setting aside the impugned orders without any cost implications.