1996 (8) TMI 256 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Determination of whether the process of cutting and punching angles and channels for use in transmission towers constitutes "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether such products are subject to Central Excise duty.

Summary:
The appellant, a State Government undertaking, purchased angles and channels, subjected them to cutting and punching, and supplied them to customers without paying Central Excise duty. The Department contended that these activities amounted to "manufacture" under Heading 7308.90, making the products dutiable. The Additional Collector upheld this view, leading to the current challenge.

The appellant argued, citing Tribunal precedents, that cutting and punching did not constitute "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act, thus the duty demand was erroneous. The Department asserted that these processes changed the nature of the products, qualifying as "manufacture."

Referring to various Tribunal decisions, it was noted that cutting and punching for use in structures did not amount to "manufacture" as per Section 2(f) of the Act, both pre and post-amendment. The Department relied on the Tariff entry for structures of iron or steel to support its position.

The Tribunal emphasized that for an activity to be considered "manufacture," a new marketable commodity must be created. It highlighted that the Tariff entry alone was not decisive in determining duty liability, as proven in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise.

Regarding the amendment to the definition of "manufacture," the Tribunal explained that the Legislature empowered to specify processes as "manufacture" in the Tariff Schedule. However, since cutting and punching were not specified as such, the Tribunal ruled that these activities did not amount to "manufacture."

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the cutting and punching processes undertaken by the appellant did not constitute "manufacture," and thus the resulting products were not excisable.