1993 (8) TMI 70 - HC - Central Excise

Manufacture - Engraving/re-engraving of copper rollers - Job work - Meaning and conditions of

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
Applicability of Notification No. 119/75 dated April 30, 1975 exempting goods manufactured as job work from excise duty.
Validity of the demand for excise duty on engraved/re-engraved copper rollers.
Compliance with the conditions for exemption under the notification.
Impact of subsequent Notification dated June 18, 1977 on the liability to pay excise duty.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of 'manufacture': The petitioner, a small-scale unit engaged in engraving designs on rollers, argued that their process did not amount to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. However, the court held that the transformation of the copper rollers through engraving/re-engraving, resulting in a commercially different commodity with enhanced value, constituted 'manufacture' attracting excise duty. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court emphasized that human skill and labor leading to a change in the product's commercial character sufficed to trigger excise duty liability.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 119/75: The petitioner contended that excise duty should be levied based on the job work charges, not the value of the copper rollers. The court agreed, citing the notification which mandated duty calculation on the basis of the job work amount. The court emphasized that the duty liability for job work involving manufacturing processes should align with the job work charges, as per the notification's clear provisions.

3. Validity of Excise Duty Demand: The authorities had demanded excise duty on the value of engraved/re-engraved copper rollers, leading to a dispute. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that excise duty should be calculated solely based on the job work charges, as per the provisions of Notification No. 119/75. The demand for duty on the value of the copper rollers was deemed impermissible under the notification.

4. Compliance with Exemption Conditions: The court examined whether the petitioner met the conditions for exemption under the notification. It was found that the petitioner satisfied all three conditions outlined in the explanation of the notification, namely the supply of the article for manufacturing process, return of the processed article, and charging only for the job work done. As there was no challenge to the petitioner's compliance, the court upheld the petitioner's entitlement to duty calculation based on job work charges.

5. Impact of Subsequent Notification: The petitioner raised the issue of a subsequent notification dated June 18, 1977, potentially affecting their duty liability. The court noted that determining eligibility for exemption under this new notification required a detailed examination of facts and conditions. It ruled that such claims should be pursued with the relevant department, as the court's writ jurisdiction did not extend to adjudicating on other exemption notifications.

In conclusion, the court set aside the orders demanding excise duty based on the value of the copper rollers, affirming the petitioner's right to duty calculation as per job work charges under Notification No. 119/75. The court emphasized compliance with exemption conditions and directed the petitioner to pursue any claims under subsequent notifications with the appropriate authorities.