2000 (4) TMI 444 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge of central excise duty payment on vertical blinds manufactured and cleared during specific years.
2. Whether the process of assembling vertical blinds constitutes a manufacturing activity liable to central excise duty.
3. Interpretation of exemption notification for goods made without the aid of power.
4. Classification of vertical blinds under central excise duty tariff heading.
5. Time-barred demand for excise duty and correct computation of the duty amount.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around the payment of central excise duty on vertical blinds manufactured and cleared during specific years. The central issue is whether the process of assembling vertical blinds amounts to a manufacturing activity subject to central excise duty.

2. The appellants contested the duty demand on the grounds that assembling vertical blinds is not a manufacturing activity liable to central excise duty. They argued that the processes involved in creating vertical blinds, such as cutting materials and stitching, do not constitute manufacturing. Additionally, they claimed eligibility for exemption under a notification for goods made without the aid of power.

3. The interpretation of the exemption notification was crucial in this case. The appellants argued that the term "made" in the notification does not equate to manufacturing as perceived by the central excise authorities. They contended that the exemption should apply only if all processes are completed without the aid of power, highlighting a distinction in wording compared to other notifications.

4. Another issue was the classification of vertical blinds under the central excise duty tariff heading. The appellants asserted that vertical blinds were not liable to duty during the relevant period and that a mistaken classification under a specific tariff item did not automatically render the goods dutiable.

5. The time-barred demand for excise duty and the correct computation of the duty amount were also contentious points. The appellants argued that the demand was inflated and incorrectly calculated, emphasizing that the assessable value should be determined after deducting central excise duty and other taxes as per the Central Excise Act.

6. The tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the vertical blinds constituted manufactured goods subject to central excise duty. The tribunal rejected the appellants' arguments regarding the exemption notification, classification under the tariff heading, and time-barred demand. However, it agreed with the appellants on the correct computation of the duty amount, remanding the case for a fresh calculation in compliance with the law.