1996 (11) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay (COD) in filing the supplementary appeal.
2. Classification and excise duty liability on copper rods and flats/bars after the cold rolling process.
3. Whether the process of cold rolling constitutes "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
4. Applicability of Notification No. 174/84-C.E. dated 1-8-1984.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay (COD) in filing the supplementary appeal:
The appellants, M/s. Adarsh Metal Indus, Bombay, filed the main appeal on time but submitted a supplementary appeal later. The delay in filing the supplementary appeal was condoned because the main appeal was filed within the stipulated time. The tribunal, after hearing the arguments from both sides, accepted the application for condonation of delay.

2. Classification and excise duty liability on copper rods and flats/bars after the cold rolling process:
The copper rods and flats/bars received by the appellants were initially classified under sub-item (3)(i) of Item No. 26A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The appellants argued that the process of cold rolling did not change the classification, as the products remained the same in terms of their tariff classification. The tribunal noted that the goods continued to be classified under the same sub-item (3)(i) of Item No. 26A even after the process of drawing and cutting.

3. Whether the process of cold rolling constitutes "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944:
The appellants contended that the cold rolling process did not result in the manufacture of a new product with a distinct name, character, or use. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, however, had earlier concluded that the process of drawing hot rolled rods and flats/bars into cold rolled rods and flats/bars constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act. The tribunal, after careful consideration, found no evidence that a new and distinct commercial product had emerged from the process. The goods received and the goods cleared remained the same, and no new product was created.

4. Applicability of Notification No. 174/84-C.E. dated 1-8-1984:
The notification exempted specified goods falling under Item No. 26A from duty to the extent specified. The tribunal observed that the copper rods and flats/bars received by the appellants had already discharged duty under this notification. The Assistant Collector had argued that the cold rolling process created a new product, thus necessitating a fresh duty under the same notification. The tribunal, however, disagreed, noting that the notification did not distinguish between hot rolled and cold rolled products. The goods remained classifiable under the same tariff item and sub-item, and no new product emerged that warranted additional duty.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the lower authorities had erred in their interpretation of the process as "manufacture" and the applicability of the notification. The appeals were allowed, and the tribunal ruled that no further excise duty was chargeable on the products obtained after the cold rolling process, as they remained the same goods under the same tariff classification and exemption notification.

← Previous Next →