2010 (4) TMI 495 - AT - Central Excise

Waste and Scrap - Show cause notice was issued alleging that copper scrap has arisen during the course of manufacture and therefore duty is payable and penalty is imposable. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order in original dropped the proceedings. Held that - Merely because the scrap has been marketed the same cannot be held to have emerged as a result of manufacture. The finding of the original authority which stand upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this aspect calls for no interference.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against rejection of duty payment on copper scrap arising during manufacturing process.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI involved a dispute concerning the liability of duty payment on copper scrap arising during the manufacturing process. The Department contested the rejection of the duty payment by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the original authority dropped the proceedings initiated through a show cause notice. The crux of the matter was whether the copper scrap, resulting from the use of copper wire in electroplating, should be considered as arising during manufacturing, thus attracting duty payment and penalty imposition.

Upon hearing the Department's appeal, the Tribunal noted that the copper wire was utilized for hanging the spanner in nickel solution for electroplating, and the subsequent unusable copper wire was cleared as scrap. The Department argued that since the copper scrap emerged during the manufacturing process, duty payment was warranted. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing the definition of "manufacture" under Section 2(f)(1) of the Central Excise Act. It highlighted that for a process to be considered manufacturing, it must result in the emergence of a distinct product with different characteristics and end use, which is also marketable.

The Tribunal further elaborated that the mere fact that the copper scrap was marketed did not automatically classify it as a product of manufacturing. It emphasized the need to analyze the raw material used, the processes undertaken, and the characteristics of the resulting product to determine if it qualifies as a manufactured item. In this case, the Tribunal found that the copper scrap did not meet the criteria of emerging as a distinct product through the manufacturing process.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessee, rejecting the Department's appeal against the concurrent findings. It concluded that the copper scrap did not arise as a result of manufacturing and, therefore, duty payment was not applicable. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the manufacturing process and the legal interpretation of what constitutes a manufactured product, highlighting the importance of distinct characteristics and marketability in determining liability for duty payment.