2024 (11) TMI 1279 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit invloved in the appeal - Activity amounting to manufacture or not - HELD THAT - In terms of National Litigation Policy, this appeal is required to be dismissed on this count alone. The issue involved in this case is as to whether activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture or not. In case it amounts to manufacture, the appellant would be required to pay Excise Duty of Rs.8,57,549/- as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. It is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a very detailed findings and has made a considered decision to allow the appeal filed by the respondent. There are no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture.
2. Whether the process of cutting and bending TMT bars to produce stirrups constitutes manufacture for the purpose of Excise Duty liability.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture, specifically focusing on the process of cutting and bending TMT bars to produce stirrups. The National Litigation Policy mandates dismissal of the appeal solely based on the amount involved, but the Tribunal decides to address the issue on merits as well. The appellant purchased duty paid TISCON TMT Bars and engaged in a detailed manufacturing process involving automated machinery to produce stirrups, which are essential components in concrete structures. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed an Excise Duty liability of Rs. 8,57,549 on the appellant.

The Tribunal examines the manufacturing process in detail, emphasizing the transformation of the TMT bars into stirrups through cutting and bending. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints vs UOI, which establishes that manufacturing must result in the creation of a new, commercially identifiable product with distinct characteristics. The Tribunal notes that the mere cutting and bending of bars without incorporating new elements does not fundamentally alter the nature of the product. Additionally, the customized nature of the stirrups tailored to customer specifications further supports the argument that no new distinct product emerges from the process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal cites precedents such as Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs CCE and Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, where similar activities involving cutting and bending did not amount to manufacture. The judgment highlights that processes enhancing market value without changing the basic character of the product do not fall under the purview of manufacturing for Excise Duty purposes. The Commissioner (Appeals) extensively analyzed the case and concluded in favor of the appellant, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue based on the detailed findings and reasoned decision provided by the Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of the manufacturing process, legal precedents, and the interpretation of what constitutes manufacture for Excise Duty liability. The decision ultimately rests on the determination that the appellant's activities, specifically the cutting and bending of TMT bars to produce stirrups, do not amount to manufacturing under the applicable laws and precedents, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.