2004 (5) TMI 76 - SC - Central Excise

Whether while repairing the defective compressors any part such as stators replaced by the appellant involves manufacturing activity attracting duty under the Central Excise Act? Held that - In the present case, what was looked into examined and found was the several steps taken in respect of the stator and so far as the stators were concerned, it has been rightly held by the Tribunal that separate activities were carried on by the appellants which were identical to the ones that was carried out in respect of new stator and, therefore, to the extent of the stator being made ready for the purpose of using in the repairing of compressor must be held to be an activity of manufacture and the Tribunal has confirmed the demand only in respect of Stators . But, insofar as the application of extended period of limitation provided under Section 11A is concerned, we do not think that the Tribunal is justified because it was not clear as to whether if any part is used for the purpose of repairing a machinery would amount to manufacture. In fact, the Tribunal on a detailed analysis and after going into several processes carried out by the appellant, came to the conclusion that the stators which were used in the repairing of the compressors involved manufacturing activity. This circumstance itself shows that there was bona fide dispute between the parties in regard to the question whether stators made ready for the purpose of use of compressors involved any manufacturing activity or not. Therefore, to the extent the authorities invoked Section 11A of the Act and imposed penal interests and other penalties shall stand set aside and the order made by the Tribunal stands modified to that extent. Appeals are partly allowed

Issues:
1. Whether repairing defective compressors involving replacing parts like stators constitutes manufacturing activity attracting duty under the Central Excise Act.
2. Whether the appellant or the job workers are considered manufacturers of the stators.
3. Whether the extended period of limitation for tax adjudication can be invoked.
4. Interpretation of 'repairs' versus 'manufacture' in the context of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case revolves around determining whether the activity of repairing defective compressors, specifically involving the replacement of parts like stators, amounts to manufacturing activity attracting duty under the Central Excise Act. The appellant, in the process of repairing, scraps components like stators which cannot be repaired. The stators were initially manufactured in the appellant's factory, and materials for replacing scrapped components are received from the factory after payment of duty. The Service Centre sends these materials to job workers for making the stators, following which the appellant undertakes shaping, varnishing, and baking to fit the stators into the compressor housing. The Collector initiated proceedings, considering the activities as manufacturing, leading to tax adjudication.

Issue 2:
A crucial aspect of the case is determining whether the appellant or the job workers should be classified as manufacturers of the stators. The Adjudicating Authority held the job workers as the manufacturers, contrary to the Appellate Tribunal's decision, which deemed the appellants as the manufacturers. The Tribunal's rationale was based on the appellant's involvement in shaping, varnishing, and baking processes, leading to the creation of marketable goods, thus considering them as manufacturers. The distinction between the roles of the appellant and the job workers in the manufacturing process is pivotal to resolving this issue.

Issue 3:
Regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation for tax adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority held that it could not be invoked, a decision upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. However, the Supreme Court found that there was a bona fide dispute regarding whether the activity of making stators ready for compressor use constituted manufacturing. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalties imposed under Section 11A of the Act, modifying the Tribunal's order in this regard.

Issue 4:
The judgment also delves into the interpretation of 'repairs' versus 'manufacture' in the context of the Central Excise Act, referencing previous cases like Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. and CCE, New Delhi v. Karna Industries. The Tribunal's analysis highlighted the distinct activities carried out by the appellant in preparing the stators for compressor use, ultimately leading to the conclusion that these activities amounted to manufacturing. This interpretation differed from previous cases and emphasized the specific processes undertaken by the appellant in the present scenario.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, addressing key issues related to manufacturing activities in the context of repairing defective compressors and the classification of manufacturers. The judgment provides valuable insights into the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the application of the Central Excise Act in similar scenarios.

← Previous Next →