1998 (1) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of items as excisable goods based on manufacturing processes carried out.

Analysis:
The appeal and cross-objection arose from an Order-in-Appeal confirming the non-excisability of 10 items due to no new goods coming into existence after processing raw materials. The revenue argued that the items, after undergoing processes like curing and drilling, should be treated as new goods and classified as such. Reference was made to Supreme Court judgments for classification under specific Tariff items. The Collector (Appeals) held that post-1-3-1988, the items were excisable, but pre-1-3-1988, they were not considered new goods for classification.

The arguments presented by both sides focused on whether the processed items should be classified as new goods for excisability purposes. The revenue contended that the items had assumed a new character and name after processing, warranting classification as goods. Reference was made to relevant judgments to support this stance. The advocate for the respondent countered, highlighting that the Kerala High Court's view was not conclusive on the manufacture of new goods. The Tribunal's judgment in a similar case was cited, emphasizing that cutting and punching of angles and channels did not create new articles for excisability.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal examined the specific items and processes involved, noting that cutting and drilling activities were central to the dispute. Citing the Tansi Engineering Works case, the Tribunal concluded that such activities did not amount to manufacturing new goods. Various Tribunal and Supreme Court judgments were referenced to support this decision. The Tribunal's approach aligned with previous decisions and emphasized the definition of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, ultimately rejecting the appeal based on the established legal precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the revenue appeal based on the analysis of the manufacturing processes involved in the disputed items. The decision was guided by established legal principles and precedents, affirming that the processed items did not qualify as new goods for excisability purposes. The cross-objections were considered as arguments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision aligned with previous judgments and legal interpretations, emphasizing the importance of established legal principles in excise classification matters.