2001 (1) TMI 401 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assembling of 'MTR' amounts to manufacture.
2. Whether the appellant (supplier of raw material) is the manufacturer against the independent jobworker.
3. Whether the department was justified in invoking the larger period.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved appeals filed by a company against an Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, which held that the assembling of 'MTR' (Modular Terminal Roset) amounts to manufacture under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 8535.90. The Commissioner categorically found that assembling the MTR involves creating a different commodity with distinct characteristics, making it a manufactured product. The Tribunal upheld this finding, citing a precedent where goods belonging to the same entry but transformed into different identifiable goods were considered dutiable. The Tribunal confirmed that the assembling of MTR constituted manufacture, rejecting the appellant's argument that adding a plastic cover did not change the essential characteristics of the product.

Issue 2:
The Commissioner also determined that the job worker involved in the assembly process should be considered a manufacturer due to the appellant's previous availing of Modvat credit and the movement of inputs under Rule 57F(3). The Commissioner shifted the liability to the appellant and allowed them to take Modvat credit after determining the assessable value. The Tribunal acknowledged this decision, highlighting the Commissioner's reasoning and decision to refer the case back to the Original Authority for fresh consideration based on factual positions and case laws. The Tribunal clarified that the remand was open for all issues except the question of manufacture, providing the appellant with the opportunity to raise all pleas, including the limitation point, in the fresh proceedings.

Issue 3:
Regarding the larger period invoked by the department under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling but allowed the appellant to address this point along with other issues during the de novo proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the remand was comprehensive, except for the issue of manufacture, and granted the appellant the flexibility to present all arguments, including those related to the period of duty demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision that the assembling of 'MTR' constituted manufacture and deemed the job worker as a manufacturer, while also allowing the appellant to address all issues in fresh proceedings except for the question of manufacture.