2000 (2) TMI 504 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether excise duty is payable on aluminium ingots and waste & scrap manufactured and cleared to another entity.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Excise duty liability on aluminium ingots and waste & scrap
The appeal filed by M/s. Gujarat Aluminium Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. raised the question of whether excise duty is payable on aluminium ingots and waste & scrap manufactured and cleared by them to M/s. Gujarat Casting Corporation (G.C.C.). The Appellant argued that both entities shared factory premises, with G.C.C. using machinery leased from the Appellant to manufacture castings. The Appellant contended that they discharged excise duty liability for the castings as they were treated as the manufacturer. Additionally, they cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their claim that no demand for excise duty can be made prior to the issuance of a show cause notice.

Issue 2: Manufacturing status and classification list
The Department, represented by Shri M.P. Singh, argued that the Appellants did not manufacture the goods in the Casting Section, as this was done by G.C.C., a separate entity. They highlighted that the Appellants paid job charges to G.C.C. and did not have an approved classification list for the impugned goods. The Department contended that the Appellants could not be considered the manufacturer of the goods, and no presumption could be made regarding the classification list's approval under Nil rate of duty due to the absence of the impugned products in the list.

Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both sides and noted that the Collector (Appeals) had found that the Appellants and G.C.C. were separate legal entities, with G.C.C. charging casting charges for the job work. The Tribunal observed that the Appellants themselves acknowledged G.C.C. as an independent entity, as reflected in the ground plan. Despite the approval of the ground plan by the Department, the Tribunal affirmed G.C.C.'s status as an independent manufacturer. As a result, the Appellants were obligated to clear the impugned goods from their premises and pay excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the demand for duty was confirmed only for the normal period, not the extended period, and that the Appellants had not filed a classification list for the impugned goods. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the Cotspun decision regarding an approved classification list did not apply in this case due to the absence of such a list for the impugned goods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's evaluation of the facts, and the legal principles applied to determine the liability for excise duty on the manufactured goods.