1996 (9) TMI 289 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff based on electroplating process.

In this case, the appellants manufacture electrical contacts and undertake electroplating on a job work basis. They contended that electroplating was not a manufacturing process under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector and lower Appellate authority classified the goods under T.I. 68 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, considering electroplating as a manufacturing process. The appeal challenges this classification.

The written submissions of the appellants did not align with the case as they referred to a refund claim on gold lumps, not silver plating on electrical contacts. The technical literature presented described electroplating as a process of depositing metallic coatings to alter surface properties. The process involves connecting parts to a direct current source, immersing them in a metal ion solution, and electrodepositing the metal. The process is considered efficient when used solely for metal deposition. Silver electroplating is highlighted for its use in electrical circuits.

Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was established that processes incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufacture are considered part of the manufacturing process. Applying this logic to the present case, where silver plating enhances the electrical properties of the contacts, it was concluded that electroplating is incidental to the completion of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Therefore, the lower authorities' classification was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.