1996 (12) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Manufacture under Rule 173H - Stripping and re-coating of damaged Photo Receptor Drum - Whether amounts to manufacture.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants who manufactured photocopiers using a Photo Receptor Drum, which is coated with a Selenium compound. The appellants requested permission to strip the damaged coating from the drums and apply a new coating, claiming it did not amount to manufacture under Rule 173H. The Assistant Collector disagreed, stating that the process constituted manufacture. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

The Advocate for the appellant argued that the activity of stripping and re-coating did not result in a new product, citing precedents where similar processes were not considered as manufacturing activities. References were made to judgments regarding re-shelling of sugar mill rollers, re-rubberising vessels, and retreading old tires, where the original identity of the product remained unchanged despite refurbishment.

After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal analyzed the precedents cited by the Advocate. The Tribunal noted that in cases where parts were replaced or coatings were redone, no new product emerged, maintaining the original identity of the item. Comparing the extent of replacement in the current case to previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the stripping and re-coating of the Photo Receptor Drum did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal set aside the lower order, allowed the appeal, and directed any necessary relief to the appellants.