1987 (4) TMI 205 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of the appeal.
2. Liability of duty on circles cut from duty-paid aluminium strips.
3. Concept of manufacture and excisability.
4. Double taxation or repeat taxation.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements under Central Excise Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Restoration of the Appeal:
The appeal was initially dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1982. The appellants sought restoration, citing illness and difficulties in engaging an advocate and securing a train ticket. Considering these circumstances, the appeal was restored to its original number and proceeded for hearing.

2. Liability of Duty on Circles Cut from Duty-Paid Aluminium Strips:
The appellants argued that the circles were cut from duty-paid aluminium strips, and since both circles and strips fell under the same sub-item, no additional duty should be levied on the circles. They contended that the circles were intermediate forms in the manufacture of utensils and were neither sold nor cleared from the factory, thus not liable to duty.

The department argued that circles are distinct goods obtained from strips, and as soon as circles are cut, a new article with a new name, character, and use comes into being. Therefore, under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, circles must pay duty as a fresh item. The department cited various High Courts and Supreme Court rulings to support this view.

3. Concept of Manufacture and Excisability:
The Tribunal discussed that excisability follows only when the duty has not been paid before. The Supreme Court's judgments in Delhi Cloth Mill and South Bihar Sugar Mill were cited, emphasizing that manufacture carries excisability only when the article produced enters an item and attracts duty for the first time. If the product has already paid duty under any form listed in the heading, it should not pay the same duty again, as this would constitute repeat taxation.

However, if the change in form or shape of the product leads it into a different heading, then excisability follows. In the present case, item 27(b) covered plates, sheets, circles, and strips, all assessable with the same rate of duty. Therefore, once duty is paid on any form listed in the heading, any article in the group remains duty-paid under that sub-heading, even if it changes shape or form.

4. Double Taxation or Repeat Taxation:
The Tribunal considered whether levying duty on circles cut from duty-paid strips constituted double taxation. The majority view in the Guardian Plasticote Ltd. case held that duty could be levied on a new excisable commodity, even if it falls under the same tariff item as the raw material. The Supreme Court's judgment in Empire Industries Ltd. supported this view, stating that processes carried out on an already manufactured product could result in the manufacture of another distinct excisable commodity, liable for duty.

The minority opinion, however, argued that the same duty should not be levied twice on the same commodity. The Tribunal ultimately followed the majority view, holding that duty could be levied on circles made from duty-paid strips.

5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under Central Excise Rules:
The appellants had not shown the aluminium strips in their raw-material accounts and had not made necessary entries in the R.G.1 register for the manufactured circles. The circles were also removed from the factory without gate passes, contravening Rule 173-F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Deputy Collector and the Appellate Collector held that the conversion of strips into circles constituted manufacture, and duty was demanded under Rule 9(2), with a penalty imposed.

The Tribunal, considering the above points and the majority view in the Guardian Plasticote Ltd. case, dismissed the appeal, upholding the duty demand and penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that duty could be levied on aluminium circles made from duty-paid strips, as the process constituted manufacture of a new excisable commodity. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the authorities below were upheld.

← Previous Next →