Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1992 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1992 (3) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the process of cutting marble blocks into slabs and tiles amounts to "manufacture" u/s the Central Excise Act. 2. Whether the refund claim for the period December 1981 to June 1982 is time-barred. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Manufacture of Marble Slabs and Tiles M/s. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Limited appealed against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellant argued that cutting marble blocks into slabs and tiles does not constitute "manufacture" as per the Central Excise Act, relying on the Tribunal's earlier decision in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. M/s. Fine Marble and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Makrana, upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal had previously held that "The marble slabs that are merely sawn from the marble blocks cannot be called a distinct commodity." The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thus applying the Doctrine of Merger, affirming that the process does not result in a new product liable for duty. Issue 2: Refund Claim and Limitation The appellant's refund claim for the period December 1981 to June 1982 was contested on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant conceded that there was no protest for this period. However, for the period from June 1982 onwards, the duty was paid under protest, supported by correspondence and the Supreme Court's decision in India Cements Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which held that a letter indicating non-acceptance of liability suffices as a protest. The Tribunal concluded that the duty was paid under protest from 21-6-1982, allowing the appeal and directing the Revenue authorities to give consequential effect to the Order. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the process of cutting marble blocks into slabs and tiles does not amount to "manufacture" and allowed the refund claim for the period post 21-6-1982, as the duty was paid under protest. The appeal was allowed, and the Revenue authorities were directed to implement the Order accordingly.
|