1999 (11) TMI 543 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of Central Excise duty on galvanised pipes manufactured from M.S. Pipes prior to the withdrawal of exemption from duty.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund claim of Central Excise duty on galvanised pipes manufactured from M.S. Pipes prior to the withdrawal of exemption from duty on M.S. Pipes. The appellants argued that since galvanisation does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f), the stock of galvanised pipes as of 27-2-1994 should be considered exempt due to the deemed removal of M.S. Pipes before galvanisation. They contended that the galvanisation process is not a manufacturing process, thus the M.S. Pipes were not dutiable. The Commissioner (A) rejected the refund claim, stating that duty was deferred to the stage of removal, and the duty was correctly demanded at the time of removal. The Commissioner held that the galvanisation charges should be included in the assessable value for duty levy, and there was no basis for a refund.

The appellants' representative argued that the M.S. Pipes, known as "Black Pipes," were exempt before 1-3-1994 and were galvanised before 27-2-1994, making them exempt under Rules 9 and 49. They emphasized that galvanisation is not a manufacturing process, hence the M.S. Pipes should be treated as exempt products. However, the authorities maintained that the duty liability arises at the stage of removal, and galvanisation charges should be considered for duty assessment. The argument focused on the interpretation of deemed removal under Rules 9 and 49, highlighting the distinction between captive use removal and removal for further processing like galvanisation.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the authorities thoroughly examined the issues raised by the appellants. It was clarified that the removal of Black Pipes for galvanisation did not qualify as deemed removal under Rules 9 and 49 for captive use. Additionally, it was reaffirmed that galvanisation does not transform the pipes into a different product, and duty liability is determined at the stage of removal. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the duty was correctly demanded at the time of removal, and there was no justification for a refund. Consequently, the appeal for the refund claim was rejected based on the findings and interpretations provided by the authorities and the Tribunal.