2000 (8) TMI 221 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Commissioner (Appeals) Orders by Revenue regarding duty payment for galvanisation process.
2. Allegation of creation of two Units with mala fide intention to avoid duty payment.
3. Interpretation of legal principles regarding duty payment on galvanised goods.
4. Verification of separate registration and duty payment history of M/s. Shakti Steel Pipes.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that M/s. Shakti Steel Pipes, involved in galvanising M.S. Pipes manufactured by M/s. Shakti Tubes Ltd., should pay duty on galvanisation. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that galvanisation of M.S. Pipes does not amount to manufacture, hence no duty is required. The Revenue argued that both entities are essentially one, created to evade duty. They cited legal precedents to support their claim.

2. The Revenue contended that M/s. Shakti Steel Pipes was formed with a mala fide intention to avoid duty payment on galvanisation. They highlighted the physical proximity, common management, and shared facilities between the two Units. The Revenue relied on past judgments where the creation of separate units to exploit exemptions was not upheld.

3. The legal consultant for the respondents defended the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that M/s. Shakti Steel Pipes existed independently since 1997, paying duty until 1999 when they ceased payment based on the belief that galvanisation did not constitute manufacture. The consultant argued that the units were distinct, with separate registrations, and the duty was paid until the change in interpretation.

4. The Tribunal found that M/s. Shakti Steel Pipes began operations in 1997, paying duty on galvanisation until 1999. Both units had separate registrations, and there was no evidence of mala fide intent to evade duty. The Tribunal differentiated this case from previous judgments, noting that galvanisation was done post-manufacture by an independent entity. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeals.