2001 (5) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over excisability of various items - Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 26/95 - Whether the process undertaken amounts to manufacture - Proper reasoning by Commissioner (Appeals) - Marketability of the goods - Remand for fresh examination.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals filed by the Revenue challenging Order-in-Appeal No. 26/95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. The dispute centered around the excisability of several items, including X arms, anchor rods, clamps, support sets, and ladders. The Assistant Commissioner initially ruled that the items were not excisable. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the process of punching, drilling, and galvanizing did not amount to manufacture as the basic nature of the products remained unchanged. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Revenue brought the matter before the Appellate Tribunal.

The Revenue argued that the goods were manufactured as per specific drawings and for specific use, emphasizing that the process involved more than just punching, drilling, and galvanizing. Reference was made to technical specifications, distinct features, and usage of the goods post-manufacture. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Revenue contended that the transformation of materials into new articles constituted manufacture under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

On the other hand, the appellant's representative asserted that there was no need for a remand as all aspects had been adequately addressed by the lower authorities. It was highlighted that the items in question did not involve significant manufacturing processes beyond cutting, drilling, and punching, except for one item. The Assistant Commissioner's findings on marketability and excisability were underscored, indicating that the goods could only be sold as M.S. Angles or Flats, regardless of internal nomenclature.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged the lack of detailed reasoning by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding each item and the absence of a clear examination of marketability. Referencing a recent Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh examination. The remand was intended to allow both parties to present their contentions, provide additional evidence, and ensure a comprehensive assessment of whether the goods constituted new, identifiable products resulting from manufacturing processes and were marketable. The appeals and cross-objections were disposed of accordingly, following the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment.