1983 (2) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Schedule, manufacturing process, consumption of goods in welding process

Classification of Goods under Central Excise Tariff Schedule:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of copper inserts made from copper chromium rods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The appellants argued that the copper inserts should not be classified as welding electrodes under Item No. 50 of the CET because they were not consumed in the welding process. They relied on the absence of a statutory definition of "welding electrodes" and contended that the natural meaning of the term should be considered. The Tribunal analyzed the meaning of welding electrodes and concluded that all sorts of electrodes used in welding, including those not consumed, fell under the tariff entry. The Tribunal held that the copper inserts, despite being known in trade by a different name, were excisable as welding electrodes under Item No. 50 of the CET.

Manufacturing Process:
The appellants argued that the process of cutting and chamfering copper rods to create copper inserts did not amount to "manufacture" under the Central Excises and Salt Act. They claimed that since no new product emerged and the essential characteristics of copper were retained, the process was merely processing and not manufacturing. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the conversion of copper rods into copper inserts involved manufacturing. The Tribunal noted that the chamfering process resulted in a product used in welding machines, thus meeting the definition of manufacture under the Act.

Consumption of Goods in Welding Process:
The appellants contended that welding electrodes must be consumed in the welding process, relying on the meaning of electrodes from a publication by ASTME. However, the Tribunal held that all sorts of electrodes used for or in welding, regardless of consumption, were covered under Item No. 50 of the CET. The Tribunal emphasized that the description of the goods as copper inserts did not affect their classification as welding electrodes. As the copper inserts were used in welding and met the criteria of welding electrodes, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of copper inserts as welding electrodes under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, emphasizing that the goods met the criteria for classification despite being known by a different name in trade. The Tribunal also determined that the process of converting copper rods into copper inserts constituted manufacturing under the Central Excises and Salt Act, rejecting the appellants' argument that it was merely processing.