1994 (12) TMI 150 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the conversion of old brass tubes into new tubes amounts to manufacture for the purpose of Central Excise duty exemption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
- M/s. Multi Metals Limited filed an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. They had converted old brass tubes into new tubes and claimed exemption from duty based on Central Excise Notification No. 213/63. The authorities rejected their claim, stating that the process amounted to manufacture.

2. Appellant's Arguments:
- The advocate for the appellants argued that the conversion of old tubes into new tubes did not constitute manufacture. He cited various judgments, including South Bihar Mills Ltd. and Tata Chemicals Ltd., to support his contention that no new product had emerged from the process.

3. Respondent's Arguments:
- The respondent, represented by the SDR, relied on the lower authorities' orders and contended that old brass tubes were essentially scrap, and the process of converting them into new tubes amounted to manufacture. He cited the case of Sriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. to support his argument.

4. Tribunal's Analysis:
- The Tribunal examined the definition of "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, which includes any process incidental to the completion of a manufactured product. The Tribunal noted that the old brass tubes were essentially scrap and that the process of converting them into new tubes constituted manufacture.

5. Legal Precedents and Interpretation:
- The Tribunal referenced the judgment in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. to establish that the product remained a brass tube throughout the process. The Tribunal also distinguished the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd., emphasizing the definition of "manufacture" under the Act.

6. Conclusion:
- The Tribunal concluded that the melting of old brass tubes to create new tubes amounted to manufacture. It rejected the appellant's argument that the process did not result in a new product. The Tribunal emphasized that interpreting "manufacture" narrowly would render the relevant legal provisions redundant and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.