1993 (12) TMI 136 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 180/88 for manufacturing Aluminium Alloy Anodes.
2. Whether making M.S. Inserts out of M.S. Rods or Pipes amounts to manufacture.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellants manufacture Aluminium Alloy Anodes and avail exemption under Notification No. 180/88. The Assistant Collector contended that the Anodes are not eligible for exemption as they contain other metals like Zinc and Indium, as well as M.S. Inserts and non-duty paid aluminium Waste and Scrap. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demands based on these grounds. The appellants argued that the Alloy Anodes fall under Chapter 76, meeting the conditions of the notification. They cited precedents and argued that the Alloy Anodes are eligible for exemption. The Judge examined the Chapter Notes, precedents, and the conditions of the notification. Relying on precedents and the wording of the notification, the Judge held that the Alloy Anodes manufactured by the appellants are indeed eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 180/88. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Issue 2:
The second point of contention was whether making M.S. Inserts out of M.S. Rods or Pipes constitutes manufacture. The appellants argued that bending or twisting the rods or pipes to create the inserts does not result in a marketable product but merely modifies the original material. The Judge agreed with the appellants, stating that the inserts, even after shaping, remain M.S. Rods and Pipes and do not become commercially distinct products. Therefore, the Judge concluded that the process of making M.S. Inserts does not amount to manufacturing excisable goods. This decision supported the appellants' position in the case.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 180/88 for manufacturing Aluminium Alloy Anodes and whether making M.S. Inserts out of M.S. Rods or Pipes constitutes manufacture. The Judge ruled in favor of the appellants on both issues, allowing their appeals and setting aside the demands made by the Assistant Collector.