1996 (1) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the conversion of wire into coils by the respondent amounts to "manufacture" attracting excise duty.
2. Whether the duty element of the inputs should be included in the assessable value of coils for excise duty purposes.

Analysis:

The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi arose from orders passed by the Assistant Collector regarding the classification of electric transformers repaired by the respondent, a unit of the Punjab State Electricity Board. The dispute centered around whether the excise duty paid by the Board on purchasing copper wires, for which Modvat Credit was availed, should be deducted from the assessable value of wires made into coils. The Assistant Collector held that the Modvat Credit cannot be deducted from the cost of inputs, leading to a challenge of these orders. The respondent contended that no manufacture was involved and no excisable event occurred, relying on earlier Tribunal decisions. The Collector (Appeals) agreed that there was no manufacture, excisable event, or liability for excise duty, which was now being challenged.

In cases where the excisability question was not raised, the Collector (Appeals) ruled that the duty element of inputs should be deducted from the assessable value of coils for excise duty purposes, prompting a challenge by the Revenue. The key issues for consideration were whether the conversion of wire into coils constituted "manufacture" attracting excise duty and if the duty element of inputs should be part of the assessable value of coils.

The Tribunal reviewed four earlier orders that concluded the conversion of wire into coils did not amount to "manufacture" as per the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized that the process involved arranging wire in coils with insulation, which did not constitute manufacturing. The Tribunal also highlighted the significance of prior decisions in tax matters, emphasizing that a departure from earlier findings requires fresh facts, a change in law, or unconsidered material facts.

The Tribunal held that the Collector (Appeals) erred in not considering whether any changes in fact or law occurred since the earlier Tribunal decisions. It was deemed necessary for the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to properly examine the matter. The controversy regarding the deduction of the duty element from valuation was not addressed, pending a decision in another case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals), remanding the cases to the Assistant Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with the law and the Tribunal's observations. The appeals were allowed accordingly.