1999 (4) TMI 265 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and the classification of the goods.
2. Classification of the goods under Chapter 69.01 or Chapter 68.07.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The dispute centered on whether the appellant's activity constituted manufacture and the classification of the goods. The appellant argued that the process did not result in anything new as the input and output were both bricks. They contended that since the goods were not classifiable under Chapter 69.01 or 68.07, the process was not one of manufacture. However, the lower authorities held that the process involved in making bricks was indeed manufacturing as the final product was identifiable and marketable. The authorities concluded that the bricks were goods for the purpose of duty levy. The appellant reiterated their stance, emphasizing that no new product was created. The Departmental Representative argued that the new bricks were distinct from the old ones and were marketable, citing relevant case law. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the process undertaken by the appellant constituted manufacture, and the goods were subject to duty levy.

Issue 2:
Regarding the classification of the goods, it was determined that they could not be classified under Chapter 69.01 due to the exclusion in Note 2. Therefore, the focus shifted to Chapter 68.07, which encompassed articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica, or similar materials. Rule 4 of the Interpretative Rules was invoked to determine the most akin heading for classification. The Tribunal observed that the new bricks were akin to the items described under Chapter sub-heading 68.07. Consequently, the goods were classified under Chapter Heading 68.07. The appeal was disposed of based on these findings.