2000 (4) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Whether affixing the brand name on tickli on taps, cocks, and valves amounts to manufacture under Note 6 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The case involved three appeals by M/s. Crystal Sanitary Fittings Pvt. Ltd. challenging two orders passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise. The main issue was whether the process of fixing their brand name on tickli on taps, cocks, and valves constitutes manufacturing under Note 6 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

The Appellant's advocate argued that they did not disassemble the tickli, only embossed their brand name on it, and the goods remained fully functional without the tickli. They emphasized that affixing the brand name did not create a new commercial commodity with distinct characteristics. The burden of proof to establish manufacturing was placed on the department, which the advocate argued was not discharged.

On the other hand, the Department contended that the Appellants fitted the ticklies themselves, enhancing the product's market value and functionality. They provided evidence suggesting that the Appellants purchased unfinished goods and affixed ticklies manually, emphasizing the necessity of ticklies for the product's completion and functionality.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted discrepancies in the evidence presented by the Department. They found that the Revenue failed to prove that the ticklies were separately brought into the premises and fitted by the Appellants. The Tribunal observed that the Appellants had consistently maintained that they received taps with ticklies already affixed and only embossed their brand name. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, setting aside the Commissioner's orders in all three appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of evidence in establishing manufacturing activities under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue, and in this case, the lack of concrete evidence led to the favorable outcome for the Appellants.