2010 (2) TMI 395 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty- The issue involved is whether the roof bolts and W straps prepared and cleared by the respondents for use in mines are manufactured goods exigible to duty. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that no manufacture was involved in their production. Held that- many excisable goods known to particular sectors of industry alone and general public may not be aware of the same. Impugned goods known to respondent and its customers and are marketable. W Straps and roof bolts are manufactured goods and liable to excise duty. impugned order set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether 'roof bolts' and 'W straps' are manufactured goods exigible to duty.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved the question of whether 'roof bolts' and 'W straps' prepared and cleared for use in mines are manufactured goods subject to duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that no manufacturing process was involved in their production, citing reasons related to market awareness and conformity to standards. The Tribunal analyzed the production process of the goods, emphasizing the transformation of raw materials into new products with distinct names and uses. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's reasoning, highlighting previous decisions where fabrication was considered as manufacture due to the emergence of new products. The Tribunal emphasized that marketability does not require general public awareness but rather relevance to specific industries. The Apex Court's judgment on marketability was referenced to support the finding that the goods were indeed marketable. The Tribunal applied the test of 'manufacture' as bringing into existence a new substance known to the market, which was satisfied in the case of 'W straps' and 'roof bolts' through specific processes applied to raw materials.

The Tribunal referred to previous cases such as Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and Sanjay Industrial Corporation, where the conversion of raw materials into distinct products was considered as manufacturing. The judgment in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. was cited to define 'manufacture' as the emergence of a new and different article with distinctive characteristics. The Tribunal found that the production processes applied to 'W straps' and 'roof bolts' met the criteria of manufacture as they resulted in new products with specific shapes and uses. The Tribunal also discussed the relevance of marketability in determining the classification of goods as manufactured. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that 'W straps' and 'roof bolts' were indeed manufactured goods and thus exigible to duty, overturning the decision of the original authority. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, and the impugned order was vacated.

In summary, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore addressed the issue of whether 'roof bolts' and 'W straps' are considered manufactured goods subject to duty. The Tribunal analyzed the production processes, previous legal precedents, and the concept of marketability to determine that the goods in question met the criteria of manufacture and were therefore exigible to duty. The decision overturned the ruling of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue.