2000 (4) TMI 401 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Whether the process undertaken by M/s. Metal Tubes for making Brass Barrels and Brass Liners amounts to manufacture as per Note 2 to Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.
- Whether the extended period of limitation is applicable for demanding Central Excise duty in this case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Process Amounting to Manufacture
The appellant argued that their process of making brass barrels and liners does not fall under the definition of drawing or redrawing as per Note 2 to Chapter 74. They highlighted that their process involves pulling the dye through the tube to achieve the desired shape, which they claimed is a process of straightening, not covered by Note 2. The appellant also contended that their final products are exempt under a specific notification as they are used as parts of agricultural equipment. They further argued that the demand for duty is barred by limitation, as they had previously communicated the details of their manufacturing process to the department, and the department had accepted the surrender of their registration certificate after examining the process.

Issue 2: Extended Period of Limitation
The department argued that the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to drawing, citing technical references to support their claim. They also stated that the appellant had not maintained statutory records, did not clear goods on payment of duty, and had suppressed material facts from the department. The department emphasized that the appellant's products were used in hand pumps for drawing water, thus falling under Heading 74.11 of the Tariff. Regarding the issue of limitation, the department reiterated that the appellant had misled the department by not disclosing the process of straightening and had suppressed material facts, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Judgment
The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on the issue of limitation, holding that the demand for duty was time-barred. The Tribunal noted that the department was aware of the process undertaken by the appellant since the insertion of Note 2 to Chapter 74, as evidenced by correspondence between the parties. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had communicated their process to the department from the beginning and that the department had accepted the surrender of the registration certificate after examining the process. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the entire demand was time-barred, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal based on the time-limit issue alone, without delving into the question of whether the process amounted to drawing or redrawing.