2009 (9) TMI 450 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture- the Adjudicating Authority to decide whether the process of cold rolling of hot-rolled products amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This issue was decided against the assessee by the Adjudicating Authority in the de novo proceeding and similar is the consequence by First Appellate Order. Therefore, the assessee s second round of litigation was with the grievance that the order of adjudication was beyond jurisdiction clearly holding that the process of cold rolling of hot-rolled products amounts to manufacture. Held that- If there is no liability at any stage of manufacture, appellant-assessee should not be demanded the duty. While directing so, we also keep in mind that Revenue has not gone in appeal against the order of adjudication allowed by the ld. Adjudicating Authority. In absence of appeal by Revenue, the relief granted by lower authority cannot be denied. Therefore, the assessee should get relief granted by lower appellate authority. With aforesaid direction and decision, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee except to the extent it is held that the process carried out by the appellant-assessee amounts to manufacture. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed except to the extent indicated above.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) on whether the process of cold rolling of hot-rolled products amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against the order passed by the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of the process of cold rolling of hot-rolled products as manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The First Appellate Order resulted from de novo adjudication following previous litigation before the Tribunal. The Adjudicating Authority was tasked with determining whether the process in question constituted manufacture, a decision that went against the assessee in both the de novo proceeding and the subsequent First Appellate Order. The assessee contended that the adjudication was beyond jurisdiction, specifically arguing that the cold rolling process did not amount to manufacture. Both sides presented their arguments, with the appellant asserting that the process merely involved converting ingots into plates and further into rounds through cold rolling, which did not qualify as manufacture.

The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the process undertaken by the appellant indeed amounted to manufacture, as detailed in the order of adjudication. The authority thoroughly examined the manufacturing process and concluded that the conversion of stainless steel flats into patta/patti through cold rolling constituted manufacture. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and reviewing the records, affirmed the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority. It was noted that the manufactured goods were cold rolled from the initial hot-rolled products, and since there was no dispute from the assessee regarding the manufacturing process, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the process constituted manufacture. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed.

Regarding the Revenue's appeal, it was acknowledged that the goods were manufactured at different stages and points in time. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concurrent examination of duty liability at various manufacturing stages and emphasized that if there was no duty liability at any stage, the appellant should not be subjected to duty demands. The Tribunal also highlighted that since the Revenue did not appeal against the order of adjudication, the relief granted by the lower authority should stand. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the relief granted by the lower appellate authority. With these considerations, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, except for affirming that the process conducted by the appellant amounted to manufacture.