2004 (2) TMI 86 - AAR - Central Excise

Whether the process of embossing unique vehicle registration numbers on already manufactured number plates amounts to manufacture?

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the process of embossing unique vehicle registration numbers on already manufactured number plates amounts to manufacture.

Analysis:
The case involved an application under Section 23C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking an advance ruling on whether the process of embossing unique vehicle registration numbers on already manufactured number plates amounts to manufacture. The applicant planned to set up a joint venture in India and proposed to purchase high security vehicle registration number plates to further process them by manufacturing aluminium sheets, laminating them with retro reflective sheets, and embossing unique serial numbers on each plate using a laser braiding machine. The embossed plates would then be stamped with a foil pre-printed with "IND" and fitted to vehicles. The central issue was whether this process constituted manufacturing under Chapter Heading 83.10 of the Central Excise Tariff.

The Commissioner raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the application, arguing that the question did not fall under Section 23C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Authority considered the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23C and concluded that the question on which the advance ruling was sought did not fall within the scope of the Act. Consequently, a notice was to be issued to the applicant under sub-section (2) of Section 23D of the Act.

The applicant's counsel argued against the rejection of the application, contending that the definition of advance ruling, when read with Clause (a) of Section 23C(2), did not support the rejection based on the grounds presented. The Departmental Representative, however, asserted that an advance ruling could only be sought concerning the liability to pay duty related to a proposed activity. The Authority examined the definition of "advance ruling" and emphasized that it pertained to the determination of the liability to pay duty in connection with an activity proposed by the applicant, with 'activity' defined as the production or manufacture of goods. The ruling clarified that the definition must be interpreted in conjunction with the enumerated heads in sub-section (2) of Section 23C. Since the question at hand did not align with any of the enumerated heads, particularly Clause (a) regarding the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, the application was rejected on the grounds that the process of embossing did not fall within the scope of the advance ruling provisions.

In conclusion, the Authority rejected the application as the question of whether the process of embossing unique vehicle registration numbers amounted to manufacture did not fall under the specified heads for seeking an advance ruling as outlined in the Central Excise Act, 1944.