2005 (4) TMI 135 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Duplicate appeal dismissal.
2. Excisability and classification of "Scrotch Brite, Scouring Pad, Scrub Pad."
3. Process of manufacture and its implications on classification and duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Duplicate Appeal Dismissal:
The tribunal identified that Appeal No. E/136/03 was a duplicate of Appeal No. E/89. Consequently, Appeal E/136/2003 was dismissed as infructuous.

2. Excisability and Classification of the Product:
Both the party and the Revenue were aggrieved by OIA No. 623/2002-C.E., dated 17-10-2002, regarding the excisability and classification of the product described as "Scrotch Brite, Scouring Pad, Scrub Pad." The Commissioner (Appeals) classified the product under CSH 9603.00, which carries a Nil rate of duty, against the original classification under CSH 6802.00. The Department contended that the product should be classified under CSH 6802.00, arguing that it is more specific and satisfies all the requirements of the Heading, including the description under the HSN Note.

3. Process of Manufacture and Its Implications:
The appellant argued that the mere cutting of jumbo rolls of Scrotch Brite into pads does not result in a process of manufacture. They contended that there is no change in the character of the product, and it remains the same even when cut into smaller sizes. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that such a slitting process amounts to manufacture. The appellant also argued that acceptance of the previous classification order does not prevent them from seeking re-adjudication. They cited several judgments to support their claim that cutting/slitting does not constitute a manufacturing process.

Tribunal's Findings:
The tribunal considered the submissions and case laws presented by both sides. It agreed with the appellant's contention that they have the liberty to challenge the classification and that the process of cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of Scrotch Brite does not amount to manufacture. The tribunal noted that there is no change in the character of the product when it is cut into smaller sizes, and thus, the cited judgments apply to the present case.

The tribunal distinguished the present case from others where the transformation resulted in a new commercial commodity. For instance, in the case of Kores India Ltd., the cutting and spooling of typewriter ribbons into specific lengths resulted in a new product with different characteristics. However, in the present case, the product remains the same after cutting.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the process of cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of Scrotch Brite into smaller pads does not amount to a process of manufacture. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was allowed. The tribunal did not address the classification issue further, as no new product emerged from the process. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal for accepting the original classification was rejected.

Pronouncement:
The judgment was pronounced in open court on 18-4-2005.